Google
This is a digital copy of a book that was preserved for generations on library shelves before it was carefully scanned by Google as part of a project
to make the world's books discoverable online.
It has survived long enough for the copyright to expire and the book to enter the public domain. A public domain book is one that was never subject
to copyright or whose legal copyright term has expired. Whether a book is in the public domain may vary country to country. Public domain books
are our gateways to the past, representing a wealth of history, culture and knowledge that's often difficult to discover.
Marks, notations and other maiginalia present in the original volume will appear in this file - a reminder of this book's long journey from the
publisher to a library and finally to you.
Usage guidelines
Google is proud to partner with libraries to digitize public domain materials and make them widely accessible. Public domain books belong to the
public and we are merely their custodians. Nevertheless, this work is expensive, so in order to keep providing tliis resource, we liave taken steps to
prevent abuse by commercial parties, including placing technical restrictions on automated querying.
We also ask that you:
+ Make non-commercial use of the files We designed Google Book Search for use by individuals, and we request that you use these files for
personal, non-commercial purposes.
+ Refrain fivm automated querying Do not send automated queries of any sort to Google's system: If you are conducting research on machine
translation, optical character recognition or other areas where access to a large amount of text is helpful, please contact us. We encourage the
use of public domain materials for these purposes and may be able to help.
+ Maintain attributionTht GoogXt "watermark" you see on each file is essential for in forming people about this project and helping them find
additional materials through Google Book Search. Please do not remove it.
+ Keep it legal Whatever your use, remember that you are responsible for ensuring that what you are doing is legal. Do not assume that just
because we believe a book is in the public domain for users in the United States, that the work is also in the public domain for users in other
countries. Whether a book is still in copyright varies from country to country, and we can't offer guidance on whether any specific use of
any specific book is allowed. Please do not assume that a book's appearance in Google Book Search means it can be used in any manner
anywhere in the world. Copyright infringement liabili^ can be quite severe.
About Google Book Search
Google's mission is to organize the world's information and to make it universally accessible and useful. Google Book Search helps readers
discover the world's books while helping authors and publishers reach new audiences. You can search through the full text of this book on the web
at|http: //books .google .com/I
3oo- 2-1
V. 10
7
PAPERS
THE TREATY OF WASHINGTON.
VOLUME IV.-GENEV'A ARBITRATION.
CONTAINING THE KEPORT OF THE .\(;EST 01' THE UNITED STATEH:
PKOTOCOLS OF THE CONFERENCES: DECISION AND AWARD OF THE
TRIBUNAL; OPINIONS OF THE ARBITKATOKS : REPLY OF THE
SECRETAKVOF STATE, ACKSOWLElKiLNO THE KEIEIIT OF
THE REPORT OF THE AGENT OF THE UJilTKD STATES.
AND COMMENTING UPON THE OPINION OF THE
ARBITRATOR APPOINTED BY HER BRITANNIC
MAJESTY ; REPORT OF THE COUNSEL
OF THE UNITED STATES;
OPINIONS OK STATESMEN, IIAG.VZINFS, ANIl JOURNALS U
BHITilS AND THE CONTISKST OS THE inN-
STRUCTIOS OF THE TUKITV,
WASHINGTON:
GOVERNMENT FEINTING OFFICE.
1872.
2f>S>
e
2/^
^ •• *»'
TABLE OF CONTENTS.
Page.
L Report of J. C. Bancroft Davis, agent of the United States i
Award and protocols transmitted 1
Action of Joint High Commission on the indirect claims 1
Protocol of May 4, 1871, and statement of claims 1
In harmony with all previous action 1
No exception taken by British commissioners 1
Definition of '^Alabama claims " in the protocol binding on the agent 1
Preparation of case 2
Private claims classed as indirect 2
Employment of Mr. Beamau 2
His fidelity 2
Arrangement of the evidence 2
Preparation of case ; principles adopted • 2
The tribunal a judicial body , 2
Case to be stated frankly 2
Unfriendly course of Great Britain and British ministers a want of due
diligence 2
What acts of subordinates a government not responsible for 3
Maintenance of insurgent bureaus on British soil a want of due diligence. . . 3
British denial of liability 3
Submission of this part of the case to publicists 3
President Woofsey 3
Mr. William Beach Lawrence 3
Mr. £. R. Hoar 4
General Cushing 4
The Cabinet 4
Last chapter not submitted for advice 4
No claim made for a particular sum for indirect damages ; tribunal asked
to estimate 4
Delivery of the case at Geneva 4
Language of the case mild 4
Comments of the British press 4
Action of the British government 5
Contemplated request for withdrawal of the American case 5
Opinion of the continental press favorable to the United States 5
Exchange of the counter case 5
Industry and zeal of the secretaries 6
Friendly vie^ s of the British agent 6
The- argument by the counsel regarded as masterly G
United States argument filed 6
British move for lon^ adjournment 6
Consequent negotiations 6
Adjudication on the indirect claims 6
Friendly feelings on both sides 7
British argument filed ; motions for further argument 7
Opinions on the Florida 7
Supplemental arguments ordered and made 7
Decisions of the tribunal 7
Damages 7
Award 8
Determination to award a sum in gross 8
Counsel advise at every stage 8
Independence and ability of neutral arbitrators 8
Due diligence ; what was claimed by United States 8
Position of Great Britain 8
Views of Count Sclopis 9
Decision of the tribunal 9
Unfriendliness of England ; views of Count Sclopis 9
Viewsof Viscount d'ltajuba 9
Views of Mr. Adams 10
Hia impartiality 10
VI TABLE OF CONTENTS.
Page.
I. Report of J. C. Bancroft Davis — Continued.
Effect of a commission ; position of the United States. : 10
Britisb position 10
American rejoinder 10
Views of Viscount d'ltajnba 10
Decision of the tribunal 10
Supplies of coal ; position of the United States 11
Decision of the tribunal 11
Views of Mr. Adams 11
Views of Count Sclopis 11
Views of Mr. Staempfli 11
Views of Viscount d'lts^uba 12
Municipal laws of England cannot be set up in Justification 12
The tribunal pass upon the Sumter, Nashville, SlCj notwithstanding Brit-
ish objections 12
Sir A. Cockburn's dissenting opinion 12
He is the representative of Great Britain 12
His charges against the American counsel 12
They need no vindication 13
No opportunity offered to consider or object to the charges 13
He charges the case with abuse and hostility 13
The reasons for those charges 13
The justice of the line of argument in the American case admitted 13
Lord Kussell justifies it 14
Lord Westbury justifies it 14
The results of the tribunal a vindication of the policy of arbitration 14
II. Protocols of the conferences of the arbitrators 15
1. Organization, and delivery of cases 15
2. Adjournment to June 15 16
3. Delivery of American argument ; British motion for adjournment 17
4. Adjournment 19
5. Ai'bitrators declare indirect claims not a subject for computation of dam-
ages 19
6. The United States acquiesce in the decision 20
7. Decision made official. British argument filed. Sir R. Palmer moves
for re-argument ; motion denied 21
8. Sir A. Cockbiim moves for re-argument ; motion denied 25
9. Order of proceedings 26
10. Same subject. Mr. Staempfli's paper ; Sir A. Cockburn's renewed motion
for argument 27
11. The Florida 28
12. The Florida 29
13. Sir A. Cockburn's motion for argument denied : the Alabama 29
14. Argument ordered as to due diligencei effect of commissions and sup-
plies of coal : the Alabama 30
15. British arguments submitted: Sumter, Nashville, and Chickamauga 30
16. Tallahassee and Retribution , . . 31
17. Oral argument of Mr. Evarts 31
18. Arguments of Mr. Evarts and General Gushing :)2
19. Retribution : argument of Mr. Waite 32
20. Sallie, Jefi*. Davis, Music, Boston, and V. H. Joy 33
21. Effect of commission ; new evidence submitted by Great Britain 33
22. TheGeorgia 34
23. The Shenandoah ; new tables presented by the agents 34
24. The Shenandoah ; argument ordered on the effect of the entry of the
Florida into Mobile 35
25. Lord Tenterden's statement about tables presented by Mr. Davis ; argu-
ments as to Florida ; decisions as to Sumter, Nashville, Retribution,
Georgia, Tallahassee, Chickamauga, and Shenandoah 36
26. Lord Ten terden presents new tables ; decisions as to Florida, Tuscaloosa,
Clarence, Tacony, and Archer ; Mr. Davis replies to Lord Tenterden's
remarks on the American tables 37
27. Claims for expenses for pursuit of cruisers, for prospective profits, and
for gross freights rejected 43
28. Argument ordered respecting interest 4&
29. Mr. Staempfli's statement, and Sir A. Cockburn's niemorandum regard-
ing a sum in gross 44
30. Regarding draught of decision 47
31. Form of decision adopted ; Viscount d'ltJijiiba re8{)ecting supplies of coal . . 47
32. Signature of award and dissolution of tribunal 48
TABLE OF CONTENTS. VII
Page.
IIL Deciniou and award 49
ReciUls 49
Award 50
Dne diligence 50
Effect of a coiumission 5q
Exterritoriality of vessels of war 50
Effect of want of notice 50
Supplies of coal 50
Responsibility for acts of Alabama 51
Responsibility for acts of Florida 51
Responsibility for the acts of the Shenandoah after leaving Melbourne . . - 52
Responsibility for the acts of the Tuscaloosa, Clarence, Tacouy, and
Archer 52
No responsibility for the Retribution, Georgia, Sumter, Nashville, Talla-
hassee, or Chickamauga 52
The Sallie, Jeff. Davis, Music, Boston, and V. H. Joy not taken iuto con-
sideration 5U
Claims for cost of pursuit not allowed 53
Same as to prospective earnings 53
Only net freights allowed 5i<
Fifteen and a half millions awarded for compensation 53
IV. Opinions of the arbitrators 55
Opinions of Count Sclopis 55
Dne diligence 57
British unfriendliness 62
Vessels which have received commissions 69
Supplies of coal 74
The Alabama 75
The Shenandoah 81
The Florida 90
Opinions of Viscount d'ltajuba 96
Effect of a commission 96
The Florida 9ti
The Alabama 99
The Georgia, Sumter, Nashville, Retribution, Tallahassee, and Chicka-
mauga 101
The Sallie, Jeff. Davis, Music, Boston, V. H. Joy 101
Shenandoah 101
Opinions of Mr. Stftimpfli 103
Opinions on the questions of law as to which the tribunal of arbitration
requested elucidation 103
Rules of the treaty take precedence 103
Questions to Ije decided 106
Definition of facto 106
Vessels whose acts are to be adjudicated upon 107
The Florida 108
The Alabama 119
The Shenandoah 125
The Sumter 134
The Retribution 138
Opinions of Mr. Adams 141
Dne diligence 141
The effect of commissiouM 146
Supplies of provisions and coals 148
The Florida 150
The Alabama 171
The Tuscaloosa 181
The Georgia 187
The Shenandoah 196
The Sumter 208
The Nashville 212
The Chickamauga 214
The Tallahassee 215
The Retribution 217
Opinions of Sir Alexander Cockburn 230
Causes of complaint brought forward by the United States 230
Rules of the treaty of Washington 230
Difficulty arising from the treaty 231
Elements of neutrality 2M
VIII TABLET OF CONTENTS.
Pago.
IV. Opinious of the arbitrators — Continued.
Obligations of the neutral state 234
Obligations of the subjects of a neutral state 234
Liability of the state for acts of its subjects .- 234
Kights of neutral subjects in respect of trade 235
DiSference between a state and its subjects in regard to trade 235
£ffect of war on neutral trade 236
Blockade and contraband of war 237
Different view 239
M. Hautefeuille 239
No obligation on neutral goverumeut-s to prevent trade in contraband of
war, or with blockaded ports 239
M. Ortolan 239
Ships of war and coals 239
Passive oommerce of the neutral 241
Lampredi 241
Azuni 242
Mas86 242
M. Ortolan 243
Heflfter 243
Professor Blunt«chli 243
Sir R. Philliraore 244
M. Hautefeuille 244
Practice in former wars 245
American authoritieM 245
Purchase of contraband of war by the Govern men t uf the United States. 247
Result of discussion 247
Sale of shins 247
Professor Bluntschli 247
Opinion of Dana 248
Opinion of M. Ortolan 249
Opinion of Professor Bluntschli 250
Opinion of M. Kolin Jacqneniyns 250
Opinion of the judges of England 251
Case of the Santissinia Trinidad 251
Judgment of Mr. Justice Story 251
Case of the Gran Para 252
American review ; 252
Opinion of Mr. Adams 253
Question as to prohibition of sale of articles contraband of war 253
Ship of war sent out for immediate service 254
Armament and crew sent out in different ships 254
Duty of neutral government 255
American argument as to effect of foreign-enlistment act 255
British and American acts 255
As to effect of act of 1870 257
Right conferred on belligerent by municipal law 258
Effect of proclamation 259
Equipment of vessels under rules of treaty 260
Construction of rules of treaty 260
Due diligence, what T 260
Opinions of jurists 262
Same principle applied to government 264
Heads of diligence 265
Law 265
Means at disposal of government 265
Action of government 266
Errors of judgment 267
Delay 267
Sejzure of vessels 267
Judicial miscarriage 268
Liability for acts of subordinates 268
Municipal law of Great Britain 270
Foreign -enlistment act 270
Preventive law 271
Comparison with American acts 271
Preventive powers of British and American acts 271
British act of 1870.. 275
Negotiations for amendment of the foreign-enlistment act during the civil
war - 276
TABLE OF CONTENTS. IX
Page.
IV. OpiniouB of the arbitrators — Continned.
Coinparisou with foreigu laws 277
Lfiw of Austria 278
Law of Prussia 278
Law of Switzerland 278
Law of France '. 278
Law of Belgium 280
Law of the Netherlands 280
Law of Spain 280
Law of Portugal and Brazil 281
Law of Italy.. 282
Law of Denmark 283
Law of Sweden 283
Law of Russia 283
Law as to privateers 283
Comparison between Great Britain and United States as to observance of
neutrality 288
Legislation of 1794 289
Complaints of Spain 289
Complaints of Portugal 295
American act of 1838 298
Exitedition of Lopez against Cuba 299
Walker's expedition against Mexico and Central America ^. 301
Fenian raids 303
Expedition in aid of the Cuban insurrection 305
Complaints of unfriendliness 309
Alleged evidence of unfriendly feeling 311
Complaints of unfriendly conduct 313
Acknowledgment of belligerency 313
Vattel 315
Hautefeuille 315
Professor Bluntschli 315
Mr. Dana 316
The Santissi ma Trinidad : 317
Whether acknowledgment premature 319
Recognition of belligerency 324
Course pursued by foreign powers 324
Question as to confederate vessels 326
Discussion with government of the Netherlands 326
Correspondence with Brazil 331
Corresjiondfence with Spain 3:^6
Correspondence with French government 336
Correspondence with British government X^
Regulations of June 1, 1861 339
Regulatiousof 31st January, 1862 339
As to Nassau 340
Alleged jiartiality as to coaling 344
Supplies of arms obtained from Great Britain 344
Ships obtained from Great Britain 346
Steps taken by the British government 347
The Bermuda 347
^'' The Georgiana 348
!'J Vessels at Glasgow 349
The Phantom and Southerner 349
l»V The Alexandra 350
•^ The South Carolina 351
|t* The Gibraltar or Sumter 351
.h' Iron-clads at Birkenhead 351
ih The Canton or Pampero 352
,t^ Iron-clad ram at Glasgow 353
iffr The Rap])ahannock 35:?
ytr The Amphion 354
»:' The Hawk 354
/7*' The AJax, the Hercules, the Virginia, the Louisa Ann Fanny 354
/7l Anglo-Chinese fleet *i^>
271 General results 355
271 Proceedings of other governments 356
/7'' Brazil 356
Portugal 356
11 — B
f
076
X TABLE OF CONTENTS.
IV. Opinions of tbe arbitrators — Continued.
France 356
The Stonewall 358
Complaints of blockade-running 359
S^'mpatby in the colonies 3(55
Application to particular vessels. 3(i6
The Florida 367
At Liverpool 367
At Nassau 38()
Alleged recniituient of crew 405
Florida after leaving Green Cay 4(>5
Question as to effect of going into and remaining at Mobile 405
After Mobile 40«
Case of the United States r«. DeQuincy 4(Ki
Question whether the Florida should have been seized on again coming
into a British port 40H
Effect of commissions on ships of war 409
Ships of war exterritorial 4ny
Heffter 410
Sir R. Phillimore 410
Ortolan 410
Case of the Exchange 411
Commission of mere belligerent 4 12
Effect of alleged violation of neutral territory 412
Hautefeuille 412
Ortolan ♦. 413
Duty of seizing for breach of municipal law 414
Duty of excluding from neutral ports 41(5
Case of the Cassius 4 17
Stay of belligerent ships in neutral ports ; supplies of coal there 41r^
Power of neutral sovereign 418
Law jw axsserted byt he United States 419
Whether coaling makes a port a base of naval operations 422
Right of asylum 424
Supply of coal 425
At Nassau 425
At Nassau 427
At Barbadoes 4'M)
At Nassau 43ti
At Bermuda 4',\'y
At Brest 4:C
At Martinique 4:tt>
Again at Bermuda 43i»
The Alabama 44C5
At Liverpool 447
After leaving Liverpool 4f >(>
Arming oli' Terceira 4(52
At Martinique 4H;<
At Jamaica 4Hi5
At the Cape of Good Hope 46?^
In the eastern seas 47 1
At Cherbourg 472
Tuscaloosa 47:<
Georgia 477
Shenandoah 4H4
At Melbourne 4.^9
Supply of coal 41»7
Melbourne a base of naval operations 49-^
After leaving Melbourne r*ti~*
Sumter r>iK>
At Trinidad r>ot»
At Gibraltar oini
At Ijiverpool ?>1 H ,
Nashville 319
At Bermuda r>l<3^
At Southampton r>\>^
Again at Bermuda r»^>'S
Cfaickamauga ^'37^
Tallahassee r>H^
Retribution r»:i
TABLE OF CONTENTS. XI
•rt*
IV. Opinions of the arbitrators — Continued.
Cases in which Great Britain has been held responsible 536
As to the award of a sum in gross 536
Amount of claims 537
Claims for cost of pursuit and capture 537
Question of damages 337
Claims for prospective catch 537
Claims for gross freights 539
Double claims 539
New claims 540
Property destroyed 540
Values of whaling- vessels 541
Values of merchant- vessels 541
Claims for cargoes 541
Claims for personal effects 542
Claim for interest 542
Conclusion 544
V. Reply of the Secretary of State, acknowledging the receipt of the report of
the agent of the United States, and* commenting upon the opinion of the
arbitrator appointed by Her Britaunic Majesty 545
Acknowle<lging the receipt of the report 545
The President's approval 545
The action of the arbitrators on the indirect claims 545
Entry of judgment on the indirect claims 546
Effect of the judtrmeut 546
The award of the tribunal 546
The dignity and learning of the arbitrators appointed by Italy, Switzerland,
and Brazil -* 546
Mr. Adams receives the thanks of Her Britannic Majesty and of the Presi-
dent 546
The dissenting opinion of Sir Alexander Cockburn 546
This opinion not read or made known to his colleagues .546
If the contents had been known it should have been objected to 546
Sir A. Cockburn professes to speak as the representative of Great Britain.. 547
R^nm^ of the positions he maintains as the representative of Great Britain . 547
Effect of the controversy in defining neutral rights and obligations 548
The importance of noting the views of the representative of the British
government 549
VI. Report of the counsel of the United States 550
VII. Appendix : Opinions of statesmen, magazines, and journals of Great Britain
and the continent on the construction of the treaty of Washington 551
I -REPORT OF J. C. BANCROFT DAVIS, AGENT OF THE UNITED
STATES.
REPORT.
Mr. Davis to Mr. Fish.
Paris, September 21, 1872. (Received October 10, 1872.) '
Sib: I transmit herewith, in a separate inclosnre, the original award
of the tribunal of arbitration, and, in another separate in- ^ward .nd prou..
cloaare, the original protocols of the conferences. couif.n*mitied.
Having now conducted to a successful termination the interests in-
trosted to me by the President, I respectfully ask permission to make a
statement respecting them.
At the conference of the joint high commissioners at Washington, in
which the subject of the Alabama claims was first consid-
-,.,»•'. .. •.!• • 11^ Action or Joint
ered, the American commissioners, m their opening state- HiKh rommi»ion on
ment, defined the demands of the United States against Great ^^^ ""*""'' *"**""*■
Britain, growing out of the acts of the Alabama, and the other cruisers,
which were to be the subject of the negotiations, in the following ian-
^aage, viz :
Bxteosive direct losses in the captare and destrnction of a largo nnraber of vessels,
with their cargoes, and in the heavy national expenditure in the pursuit p^jocoi oi M«y 4
of the cruisers ; and indirect livjury in the transfer of a large part of the 1971. ma nutemeat
American commercial marine to the British flag, in the enhanced pay- ^ claims.
nient of insurance, in the prolongation of the war, and in the addition of a large sum
%o the cost of the war and the suppression of the rebellion.
At the same time they indicated the manner in which some of these
claims could be substantiated, viz: the claims for the loss and destruc-
tion of private property in the ordinary manner; the cost of the pursuit
of the cruisers " by certificates of Government accounting officers," and
what they styled "indirect losses" by estimates. All the subsequent
negotiations proceeded from this starting point.
It has been shown, beyond possible question, in the argument of Gen-
eral Gushing, Mr. Evarts, and Mr. Waite, presented to the ,„ h„„o„y ^nk
tribunal on the 15th of June last, that this definition of our •Mp'«^i«»'»~=^'>»-
claims was in strict accordance with all previous negotiations between
the two governments, with the action of the Senate of the United States,
and with the official expressions of the President to Congress.
The British members of the joint high commission took no exception
to the definition when it was made by their American col- Ho»c«ptii>nukM
leagues. They acquiesced in it. JfoaJJiJ'"* ~""***
When I had the honor to receive the directions of the President to
prepare the Case of the United States for submission to the Definition or-Ai.-
tribunal, I regarded myself as bound by the definition of the prt^oC^S5di5*i;
words "Alabama Claims'' which the American commission- *»>••«'"*•
ers had given in the opening conference, which they had adhered to
thronghout the negotiations, and which had, been placed in the protocol
IB
2 ARBITRATION AT GENEVA.
by the joint act of all the commissioners. I looked in vain in the treaty
for any waiver or remission of those claims. On the contrary, I found!
an express provision that the United States were to have the judgment
of the tribunal on all their claims growing out of the acts of tiie
cruisers.
The question was a practical one: for the claims for ''enhanced rate»
prepmtionofaw*. of insorancc " were among those which had been classifiieci
prw.t.ci«im«ci««- as "indirect" in the statement, which had received the ap-
..Aeduiadirect. pfoval of all thc mcmbcrs of the joint high commission.
Many claims of this character were presented at the Department of
State, and a circular was issued, under the immediate direction of the
Secretary of State^ informing claimants that all claims growing out of
the acts of the cruisers woald be presented to the tribunal, leaving that
body to determine on their merits.
It was impossible for me to prepare the Case and, at the same time, to
T.mpwmeniofMr. dircct iu pcrsou thc details of the arrangement of the evi-
veamao. dcucc rcspccting the national and individual claims. Mr.
Charles C. Beaman, jr., of New York, was employed to do the latter,.
under general directions from me, and did his work with
uis fidelity. admirable fidelity. Thus the evidence already collected^
together with important new materials from the archives of the several
Departments, and the proof of the losses suffered by individual claim-
ants, were arranged and stated in the manner marked out by the Ameri-
can members of the joint high commission, viz :
1. The evidence offered by individual claimants for the loss and de-
Arnin««mentortiie structiou of propcrty aud for enhanced rates of insurance
evidence. ^^g analyzed and tabulated, and a full abstract of each case
was prepared by the clerks.
2. The national claims for the pursuit of the cruisers were stated and
tabulated at the Navy Department, and were inserted by us exactly as-
received from that Department.
3. No proof was offered of the national losses by the transfer of the
commercial marine, or h^ the prolongation of the war, but they were-
left to be estimated by the tribunal of arbitration, should Great Britain
be found responsible for them.
The Case, which was reserved for my own work, was constructed on^
the following theories of fact and of law — theories which
cSJ-lViailTi^l have received the sanction of the eminent counsel of the-
******^* United States ; which have been adhered to in all the argu-
ments, and which have, to no small extent, been adopted by the arbi-
trators :
(a) That the tribunal of arbitration was a judicial body, substituted
Thf^tribuMiaju- by thc partlcs to take the place of foi-ce, and empowered
4iciai body. ^q ^^y ^ud dctcrmiue issues which otherwise could be settled
(if at all) only by war.
{b.) That the injuries of the United States should be stated, therefoi'e,.
c„eto be .tftted 'wlth thc fullucss ucccssary to a determination in a court of
frankly. jg^^^ gjj^j ^^jj ^\^q samc fraukncBS with which they would be
stated in case of an appeal to force. I did not think that the United
States could obtain full justice at the hands of the arbitrators if any ap-
preciable part of their wrongs were left untold,
(c.) That the government of Great Britain, by its indiscreet haste in-
counselling the Queen's proclamation recognizing the iu-
cf^"/^S°BrTti.'ir«i;d surgeuts as belligerents, by its preconcerted joint action
WMt'ii" 'dLr^u'. with France respecting the declarations of the congress of
Paris, by its refusal to take steps for the amendment of its-
■cac«
REPORT OF THE AGENT OF THE UNITED STATES. 3
neutrality laws, by its refraining for so long a time from seizing the
rams at Liverpool, by its condact in the affair of the Trent, and by its
approval of the course of its colonial officers at various times; and that
the individual members of the government, by their open and frequent
expressions of sympathy with the insurgents, and of desires for their
success, had exhibited an unfriendly feeling, which might affect their
own course, and could not but affect the action of their subordinates;
and that all this was a want of the ^'due diligence" in the observance
of neutral duties which is required at once by the treaty and by inter-
national law.
It seemed to me that such facts, when proved, imbued with the char-
acter of culpable negligence many acts of subordinates in wtameuioi .nb-
the British service for which, otherwise, the government ^iS'i^rinS^
might not be held responsible; as, for instance, acts of the ^'"■
collector of customs at Liverpool respecting the Florida and the Ala-
bama ; acts of the authorities at Nassau respecting the arming of the
Florida at Green Bay, and subsequently respecting her supplies of coal;
acts of the authorities at Bermuda respecting the Florida; and acts of
the authorities at Melbourne respecting the Shenandoah. There were
many such acts of subordinates which, taken individually and by them-
selves, would not form a just basis for holding culpable a government
which was honestly and with vigilance striving to perform its duty as
a neutral ; but which, taken in connection with each other, and with the
proofs of animus which we offered, establish culpability' in the gov-
ernment itself.
{d.) That the insurgents established and maintained, unmolested
throughout the insurrection, administrative bureaus on
British soil, by means of which the several cruisers were "vnent «dm>ni.tr«.
dispatched from British ports, or were enabled to make them ilwuiih "UnV want
bases of hostile operations against the United States, and '•^^"''•''■*'^
that the British government was cognizant of it.
(e.) That Great Britain, from the outset, denied, and to the last per-
sisted in denying, that the departure of vessels like the British denmi a
Alabama and the Florida, under any circumstances, could ^'*'''''''-
be a breach of international duty ; and had refused to exercise diligence
to prevent such departure.
(/.) That in point of fact no such diligence had been exercised ; and
that, while there were particular facts as to each vessel, tending to fix
responsibility upon Great Britain, these general indisputable facts were
sufficient to carry responsibility for the acts of all the cruisers.
The treatment of this line of argument exhausted five chapters of the
Case. These five chapters were printed in a memorandum
form, and were submitted to several gentlemen, some of i»rtorai««topabii-
whose names I may mention without violating confidence ; ""^
only remarking, injustice to them, that they should not be held respon*
sible for the views in this part of the Case, by reason of having lead
it in advance.
1. They were sent to President Woolsey, who made many
valuable suggestions, most of which were adopted. Pr«i.dmtwoois«f
2. Mr. William Beach Lawrence, the eminent publicist, permitted me
to consult him, not only after these chapters were written, „, ^^^ ^.^
but also during their composition. I did not adopt his well- "''^''
known views respecting the Queen-s proclamation and the unfriendli-
ness of the British cabinet; nor do I suppose that he, knowing my con-
victions to be otherwise, had any idea that I would adopt them. I did,
however, receive from him valuable hints, which improved the work.
4 ARBITRATION AT GENEVA,
3. Mr. E. R. Hoar, one of the members of the joiut high commission,'
read these chapters at my request, and expressed his gen-
Hoar. ^^^^ approval. I think that he made several suggestions,
and that all were adopted.
4. The veteran statesman and scholar, General Gushing, made several
valuable contributions, all of which were embodied in the
work.
6. The different members of the Cabinet were consulted, and, so far
as they made suggestions, their views were adopted. It is
n»e ctb.nrt. within your own knowledge that I received several valuable
contributions or hints from you.
It was not until I had thus received and acted on the advice of a wide
circle of statesmen, jurists, and publicists, competent to criticise the
work, of w^hose patriotic desire to have the interests of their country
represented with dignity at Geneva no one could doubt, that the final
chapter of the work was written. This chapter contained the formal
Lwt chnpt«r not statcmcut of the claims submitted for adjudication under
.ubmiiiedioradYKe. ^]^q trcaty. Amoug them were those which have since be-
come known as "the indirect claims.'' To prevent misapprehension it
should be said that this chapter was not sent out for criticism as the
others had been. The statements were presented in the exact language of
the protocol made by the two parties jointly for the purpose of defining
the claims to be submitted to the tribunal. They were accompanied by
references to the proofs respecting the individual claims, and the national
No claim nwde lor ^^^"^"^ ^^^ ^^® pursuit of thecruiscrs; and with a request
« pa"rtkuurr.m for that thc tHbunal would estimate the national losses in the
indirect dnni.-«g«» — . ^ t» ^t * % • ja«x« i a'
tribunal Mk.rd to trausier of the commercial marine, and m the prolongation
estimate. ^^. ^^^ ^^^^ Aud, lu ordcr that the statement might be com-
plete, some reasons were added why, should the tribunal be of opinion
that Great Britain was responsible for the prolongation of the war, the
prolongation should be dated from July, 1863.
The Case, as thus revised, was reprinted, and was, in accordance with
T>*iiverr of the tho tcrms of the treaty, taken to Geneva, and there de-
c*.eatG««%a. Hvercd to the arbitrators and to the British agent in the
ofQcial English, (and also in a French translation, made for the con-
venience of the arbitrators,) together with seven volumes of accom-
panying documents, correspondence and evidence.
The facts which were disclosed in the Case were, undoubtedly, such as
The lanRttaie of callcd for thc rcprobatiou of justthiukiug pcrsous; but thcse
the ««« tried. f^cts wcrc told, so far as I was able to do so, in simple and
temperate language, without harshness or violence. J^othing could
have been further from my expectations than the outburst which fol-
lowed.
In about a fortnight after we left Geneva, it began to bo said in the
Comment- ot the Loudou ucwspapcrs that the good faith of the British
Brituhpreaa. govemmcut was callcd lu question m the American Case,
and soon the whole press, with the exception of the newspaper univer-
sally recognized as the leading journal, opened an attack upon the
chapter on unfriendliness.
The Standard thought we had "sacrificed the consistency and dig-
nity of our pleadings to satisfy popular prejudice at home.'' The Tele-
graph spoke of the " effrontery" with which the American demands
were set forth, and said that '^ it must be borne in mind that General
Grant seeks re-election." The Saturday Beview spoke of the narrative
as " perverted and spiteful," and " a malignant composition," and said that
" if the Americans wish to express still more hostile feelings, they must
REPORT OP THE AGENT OF THE UNITED STATES, §
diaoontinae verbal controversy.'' The Fall-Mall Gazette, nsaally fair
and ooorteoas, though hostile, charged that the claims had been bought
up by ^^American legislators and officers of state even among the higher
and more influential grade." The Spectator charged us with ^^ sharp
practice," and ^' a discreditable forcing of the natural meaning of the
treaty in order to win popularity at the elections." The Daily News
called the claims '^ extravagant demands intended as an electioneering
card," and complained that the case was a ^Mong and passionate plead-
ing," in which '^ chapter after chapter is devoted to the presumed mo-
tives of our [British] public men."
In fact, fault was found indiscriminately with nearly everything in
the Case except the one thing afterward made the main subject of com-
plaint, namely, the allegation that it contained demands which were not
included in the submission in the treaty. That was an objection which
did not appear in the British press until weeks after the exchange ot
the documents at Geneva, and, so far as I am aware, was not taken by
any person entitled to speak by the authority of the government until
a still later day.
Even as late as the middle of January negotiations were going on
between the respective agents and counsel regarding the Artmno. the British
times and the manner of making supplemental arguments «°'"'""<'"*-
at Geneva, (should the tribunal call for any,) without an intimation that
there might be a difference as to the subjects to be argued. It was not
until the 3d of February that the ministry announced officially that
they had not anticipated that the claims which have improperly become
known as the '' indirect claims" would be presented at Geneva.
Indeed, there is some evidence that the British government was occu-
pied with the parts of the Case which had offended the Brit- rontempinted^re.
isb press ; for I gather from General Schenck's telegram of SuwAmer'.cii™Ii'
the 27th of February, reporting to you an interview with Lord Gran-
ville, that the cabinet had under consideration atone time the propriety
of asking for the absolute withdrawal of the American Case, on other
^rrounds than its presentation of the '^ indirect claims.''^
For several weeks, I may say months, the London press continued to
discuss our national claims. This discussion was conducted opimo»i of th«
with a vehemence, and with insinuations or charges of bad ^orM^tothVvZ!^
iaith, which attracted the attention of the Continental *^*'''*-
press. In all the principal capitals of Europe, the Alabama claims be-
came the subject of comment. The unanimity of the verdict in favor
of our construction of the treaty was as complete as was the unanimity
of the English press in favor of Great Britain, and it was universally
conceded that England could not retire from the arbitration without dis-
honor. I inclose a variety of extracts on this subject.
During all this time I was occupied in Paris in the preparation of
the counter-case, and the other duties of the agency. On E,,hani,« ..r the
the 15th of April I was able to comply with the require- *^''""'" *'"*''■
ments of the treaty and the directions of the tribunal by delivering
the counter-case and accompanying documents to Mr. Favrot for the
British agent and for the arbitrators. The volume of evidence accom-
* ''He [Lord Granville] then said to me that in his note of the 3d he had stated the
views of Her Majesty's governnient as to indirect claims ; that there were other por-
tions of [the] American Case they regret, and some of which appear to introduce mat-
ters not cermane to reference ; that he has not been able to consult cabinet here, hut is
indtrndnallif prepared to recommend to themy and he thinks tcith reasonable expectation of sue-
oest, that fhe^ should not press for withdrawal of American Case if the Government of ilie
United States,''^ Ac, drc.-^( Correspondence respecting Geneva Arbitration, page 5.)
6 - ARBITRATION AT GENEVA.
panying the counter-case was selected and arranged under the directions
of the counsel. At the same time I delivered French translations of
these documents, and also two volumes containing French translations
of selected pieces from the seven volumes of evidence submitted with
the case in December.
This, and much of the subsequent work, could not have been com-
iodu,t,y and «e»i plctod iu scasou had not the secretaries been willing, when
of u«.«;r»tari«.. callcd upou, to worfc day and night for the purpose.
Lord Tenterden met me at Geneva in April with unreserve, and in the
vnrnAi, vi^*. of Spirit of couclliation. Under instructions from his govem-
iteBr.t«ha«e«u nient, he lodged with the secretary of the tribunal a notioe
to the individual arbitrators of the action taken by Her Majesty's gov-
ernment on the 3d of February, in order that the act of filing the British
counter case should not be deemed to be a waiver of that action. But he
did not conceal his own strong desire to save the treaty, and he left on my
mind the conviction that the judicial solution which the tribunal sub-
sequently made of the political difficulty raised by the British note of
the 3d of February would be accepted by the British government.
The time between the 15th of April and the 15th of June was occu-
Th« « ntnent b ^^^^ ^^ ^^^ counscl lu thc prcparatlou of their argument.
ihecJuI!!I"!r,Hrded Thls argumcut has attracted great attention throughoat
" '""^'^ Europe, and has received universal praise as a masterly vin-
dication of our rights.
On the 15th of June the tribunal re-assembled, the agents and counsel
United state^argu- ott both sidcs bciug prcseut. The argument of ^he United
mentfikd. Statcs was duly delivered, (together with the French trans-
lation made for the convenience of the arbitrators^) but the British
British moT. for agent,instead of filing thc British argumcut, askcd for au dd-
loQg .(UouramenL joummeut of sevcral months, in order to enable the two
governments to arrange politically the questions in dispute.
I had already discussed with General Cushing the probability of ad-
con»«.,uent nego- justiug thcsc difFercuces by the action of the tribunal. In-
i«t.o.«. stead of assenting to the proposed adjournment, I therefore,
with the full concurrence of the counsel, asked for an adjournment of two
days, in order to give us time to consider the position. Before the tri-
bunal convened again, steps were taken for removing the difficulty
through the action of that body. In the proceedings which followed we
acted as a unit on our side. Happily they resulted in a solution by
the tribunal, which proved to be acceptable to both governments. The
Adiudirationonth* arbltrators announced their opinion that the claims known
.ad.r«ct ciainw. ^k thc iudircct claims did not constitute, on principles of
international law applicable to such cases, good and sufficient founda-
tion for an award of compensation or computation of damages between
nations. On the side of Great Britain the solution was a i)ractical one;
no damages were to be awarded for this class of claims. On our side
the solution was reached in the manner pointed out by the treaty, viz,
by the action of the court. On the suggestion of the other side, this
unofficial act was then formally entered as an official judgment, in the
following language:
Couut Sclopis, on behalf of all tbe arbitrators, theu declared that ibe said several
claims for iodirect losses mentioned in the statement made by the agent of tbe United
States on the 25th instant, and referred to in tbe statement just made by the agent of
Her Britannic Majesty, are, and from henceforth will be, wholly excluded from tbe
consideration of tbe Tribunal, and directed the secretary to embody this declaration in
the protocol of this day's proceedings.
REPORT OF THE AGENT OP THE UNITED STATES. 7
In all these proceedings, 1 found the British agent and Friendufc«ii»»w
•counsel sharing our sincere and earnest desire to save the ^^^ "*•*
treaty.
The British argument was next filed, with my consent, and an effort
was then made on their side to re-open argument and secure
. . .. « 1 Z' rn^. • British arfunieat
anew hearing on the whole question. This was success- mpii Mot;»nn>rrur
fully resisted, and the tribunal took a recess for a fortnight. '*'""■'""•"*•
On Monday, the 15th of July, it re-assembled. The efforts on the
part of Great Britain to secure re-argument were renewed. The neutral
iirbitrators said that they had examined the whole case, and that they
wanted no re-hearing. It was decided by the tribunal to give the
opinion of the arbitrators seriatim on each cruiser, beginning with the
Florida.
Sir Alexander Cockburn presented the facts and reasoning affecting
this vessel at an extreme length, holding Great Britain opinion, or tb«
free of blame. The other arbitrators held her responsible, ''**"*'"•
reserving, however, the question as to the effect of a commission.
Sir Alexander Cockburn, then, in vigorous language, and with
great warmth of manner, urged the tribunal to permit an argument
upon the meaning of the words " due diligence,^ upon the effect of a
•commission, and upon the law respecting the supplies of coal. The
tribunal granted the request. I was, myself, in favor of allowing further
arguments, within some defined scope. I thought that we had nothing
•to lose by an argument, in which we had the reply, in the hands of such
masters of discussion as General Gushing, Mr. Evarts, and Mr. Wait^'.
The hearings were ordered, and, before the dissolution of the tribu-
nal, arguments had been made (always on the suggestion ^^ ,eme,„i.,i
of England) on the following points, the British counsel M?^«m?nu'"orj«r;a
leading and ours* following: 1, on the meaning of the words
"due diligence;" 2, on the effect of a commission on the offending vessel;
3, on supplies of coal; 4, on the recruitment of men for the Shenandoah,
at Melbourne; 5, on the effect of the entry of the Florida into the port
of Mobile ; 6, on the subject of interest ; 7, on the general subject of the
statement of claims. These arguments were presented generally both
in the English and the French languages.
The protocols which accompany this dispatch show the order in which
these various papers were delivered, and the order in which the arbitra-
tors considered the various cruisers. It was not until after the argu-
ments on the first four subjects that the formal votes p^^^fiB or th«
required by the treaty were taken separately upon the ^'''""■'•
responsibility of Great Britain as to each cruiser. The tribunal decided
unanimously that there was responsibility for the acts of the Alabama.
•Count Sclopis, Mr. Stampfii, and Mr. Adams held that there was re-
sponsibility for the acts of the Shenandoah after leaving Melbourne,
but not before. Great Britain was released from responsibility as to the
other vessels, except the Florida ; Mr. Adams holding that there was
responsibility for the acts of the Ketribution, and Mr. Stampfii holding
that there was responsibility for the acts of that vessel only so far as
related to the Emily Fisher. The formal vote on the Florida was taken
at a subsequent conference, after agument by counsel on the special
<]nestion of the effect of the entry into Mobile. Count Sclopis, Viscount
•d*Itajuba, Mr. Stampfii, and Mr. Adams held there was responsibility
for her acts.
The deliberations of the tribunal, on the subject of damages, were
held with closed doors. The arbitrators asked each party
for comparative tables, which were furnished. On our side, ^"^
8 ARBITRATION AT GENEVA.
-we limited ourselves to the request of the tribunal. Oo the other side,
new tables were put in with new and elaborate criticisms upon our list
of claims. We did not object to this irregular criticism, but claimed
the right of reply given by the treaty.
The tribunal, at length, announced that a result had been reached —
^^^^^ that fifteen and a half millions of dollars would be awarded
as a gross sum, to be paid' by Great Britain to the United
States. It does not appear in the protocols how the arbitrators arrived
at this amount. I am informed that it was reached by mutual conces-
sions.
The neutral arbitrators and Mr. Adams, from the beginning of the
DetermiMiion to procccdings, wcrc convinced of the policy of awarding a
«w.^d . .um ,n g^^^ j^ gross. For some weeks before the decision was
given, I felt sure that the arbitrators would not consent to send the
case to assessors until they should have exhausted all efforts to agree
themselves upon the sum to be paid. We therefore devoted our ener-
gies toward securing such a sum as should be practically an indemnity
to the sufferers. Whether we have or have not been successful can- be
determined only by the fioal division of the sum.
It is due to our counsel to state that in all the proceedings which were
coutweudTiKdon takcu siucc their arrival in Europe no step was made with.-
rver, .u«e. qq^ tlicir advlcc and consent, and many important ones were
xaken on their suggestion and origination. That their labors have been
incessant any one may imagine who sees the mass of able papers which,
came from their pens.
The opinions which the neutral arbitrators presented bear testi-
mony to the sagacity, good judgment, and knowledge of
,.,!S'*o/'^'ie..'t'na the principles of law and fact at issue, which they brought ta
aro.tnitor.. ^yQ^j^ Oil thc casc, and to the untiring labor with which they
mastered the varied and difficult questions submitted by the parties for
their decisions. It only remains to say that they exhibited throughout
marked patience and good temper, and that these admirable qualities
were sometimes needed. These opinions will undoubtedly be read with
interest. I take the liberty, in closing, to make a few remarks upon the
main points at issue, as they are treated in the opinions of the different
arbitrators.
1. Due diligence.
We maintained in the Case that the diligence of the neutral should '* be
proportioned to the magnitude of the subject, and to the
i,..eun^«c. dignity and strength of the power which is to exercise
wh.twa. cj, ..db, it,'' (page 158,) and that it should be "gauged by the
th. United Stat... character and magnitude of the matter which it may
affect, by the relative condition of the parties, by the ability of the party
incurring the liability to exercise the diligence required by the exigencies
of the case, and by the extent of the injury which may follow negli-
gence," (page 152.) We thought, for instance, that it would not be just
to hold Brazil, with its extended coast, sparse population, and feeble
means of internal communication, and Great Britain, with its compact
population, its net- work of railways and telegraphs, and its administrative
system always under the control of the central government, to an identi-
cal standard of active vigilance.
pooitioGofGrMtBritiuiL Ou thc othcr side it was said :
Her Mi^esty's jB^ovemment knows of no distinction between more dignified and less
dignified powers ; it regards alJ sovereign states as enjoying eqaal rights, and equaUy
REPORT OF THE AGENT OF TUE UNITED STATES. 9
Bnbject to all ordiuary international obligations ; and it is firmly persuaded that there
is no state in Europe or America which would be willing to claim or accept any immu-
nity in this respect, on the ground of its inferiority to others in extent, military force,
or population.
Count Sclox)is, iu bis opinion, says : v.ow, of conmscioji..
The words due diligence necessarily imply the idea of a relation between the duty
and its object. It is impassible to define a priori and abstractly an absolute duty of
diligence. The thing to which the diligence relates determines its degree. * * *
Aa to the measure of activity in the pedbrmanoe of the duties of a neutral, I think the
following rule should be laid down ; that it should be in a direct ratio to the actual
danger to which the belligerent will be exposed through the laxity of the neutral, and in
an inyerse ratio to the direct means which the belligerent can control for averting the
danger.
The Tribunal, in its award, says : ^''***"1„1l'^" ''"
The dne diligence referred to iu the first and thinl of the said rules ought to be
exercised by neutral governments in exact proportion to the risks to which either
of the belligerents may be exposed from a failure to fulfill the obligationsof neutrality
on their part. • • « 'p^jQ circumstances out of which the facts consti-
tuting the subject-matter of the present controversy arose were of a nature to call
for the exercise, on the part of Her Britannic Majesty's government, of all possible
solicitude for the observance of the rights and duties involved in the proclamation
of neutrality issued by Her Majesty, on the 13th of May, 1861.
2. TOLERATION OF INSURGENT OPERATIONS IN ENGLAND, , ,.rricuju«c« .„
AND English feeling against the United States. *^"***"*'
Count Sclopis says, respecting tbis point : ^'^"^ khlpu!^*"'"^
The British government was fully informed that the confederates had established
in England a branch of their means of attack and defense against the United States.
Commissioners representing the government of Richmond were domiciled in London,
and had pat themselves in communication with the English government. Lord Rus-
seU had received these confederate representatives in an unofficial way. The first
visit took place on the 11th of May, 1661, that is to say, three days before the Queen's
proclamation of neutrality, and four-^ays before Mr. Adams arrived in London as the
minister of the United States. And further, the English government could not but
know that great commercial houses were managing the interests of the confederates
at Liverpool, a town which, from that time, was very openly pronounced in favor
of the South. In Parliament itself opinions were before long openly expressed iu
favor of the insurgents. The Queen's ministers themselves did not disguise that in
their opinion it would be very difficult for the American Union to re-establish itself as
before. ##»♦*« It results from this, in my opinion, that the
English government found itself, during the first years of the war of secession, in the
midst of circumstances which could not but have an influence, if not directly upon
itaelf, at least upon a part of thejpopulation subject to the British Crown. No govern-
ment is safe against certain waves of public opinion, which it cannot master at its
will. I am far from thinking that the animus of the English government was hostile
to the Federal Government during the war. Yet there were grave dangers for the
TJnited States in Great Britain and her colonies which there were no direct means for
averting. England therefore should have fnlfilled her duties as a neutral by the
exercise of a diligence equal to the gravity of the danger. * * * It cannot
be denied that there were moments when its watchfulness seemed to fail and when
feebleness in certain branches of the public service resulted in great detriment to the
United States.
Viscount d'ltajnba has not placed on record bis opinion on this sub-
ject, unless it can be gathered from a single passage in his vi«.«»oi riBcoimt
remarks npon the effect of a commission on an offending ^'i^">»-
cruiser, Avhen he says, "By seizing or detaining the vessel the neutral
only prevents the belligerent from deriving advantage from the fraud
committed within its territory by the same belligerent ; while, by not
proceeding Offainst a guilty vessel it exposes itself to having its good faith
justly called in question by the otfier belligerent^
10 ARBITRATION AT GENEVA.
m
It would seem from some of Mr. Adams's expressious tliat lie did not
vi«w« oi Mr. concar in these views of his colleagues. While regretting
Adam.. ^jja^ij Yte^ ^ji^j QQ^ ^jq g^ because the views seem to me to be
in accordance with the facts, and also in accordance with general prin-
«ciples which all maritime powers would desire to maintain, I must bear
testimony to the perfect and dignified impartiality with
Hi..mp.rtmj.t,. ^iij^h, uot ouly lu thls respect, but throughout the proceed-
ings, Mr. Adams maintained his position as a judge between the two
contending nations. Of him, at least, it may be said that his love of
country never controlled his sense of justice, and that at no time did he
appear as an advocate.
3. Duty to detain an offending cruiser when it comes AaAiN
WITHIN the neutral's JURISDICTION, AND EFFECT OF A COMUnS-
SION UPON SUCH CRUISER.
It was maintained in the American Case that, by the true oonstructiou of
Effect ot a .om- thc sccoud clausc of the first rule of the treaty, when a vessel
tnu.>oa. ]||jg |j]jg Florida, Alabama, Georgia, or Shenandoah, which has
powiion oi th« ^^^^ especially adapted within a neutral port for the use of a
cjmted suie.. belHgereut in war, comes again within the neutral's juris-
diction, it is the duty of the neutral to seize and detain it. This con-
struction was denied by Great Britain. It was maintained
Brit.»h po-uion. ^^ ^^^ Britlsh papcrs submitted to the tribunal, that the
obligation created by this clause refers only to the duty of preventing
the original departure of the vessel, and that the fact that the vessel
was, after the original departure from the neutral port, commissioned as
a ship of war protects it against detention.
To this point we rejoined that a commission is no protection against
seizure in such case, and does not operate to release the
Aoier.ca»rpjoimier. j^^^^|.p^| f^Q^^ ^hc obligatlou to dctalu thc offender.
vi««r»of vixouBi The Viscount d'ltajnba seemed to favor the American
.1 n.%jub*. construction. He said :
According to the latter part of the first rule of Article VI of the Treaty of Washing-
ton, the neutral is hound also to use due diligence to prevent the departure from its
jurisdiotiou of any vessel intended to cruise or carry on war as above, [viz, against a
beUigerent,] such vessel having been specially adapted, in whole or in part, within'
its jurisdiction to warlike use. • * * If, then, a vessel built on neutral ter-
ritory for the use of a belligerent, fraudulently and without the knowledge of theneu-
triJ, comes again within the jurisdiction of the sovereign whose neutrality it has vio-
lated, it ought to be seized and detained.
Count Sclopis says, on this point :
It is on the nature of these special circumstances that the first rule laid down in
Article VI of the Treaty of Washington specifically rests. The operation of thab rale
would be illusory, if it could not l^ applied to vessels subsequently commissioned.
The object in view is to prevent the conscruction, arming, and equipping of the vessel,
and to prevent her departure when there is sufficient reason to believe that she is in-
tended to carry on war on behalf of one of the belligerents ; and when probability has
become certainty, shall not the rule be applicable to the direct and palpable conse-
quences which it originally was intended to prevent f
In the award the Tribunal says that —
The effects of a violation of neutrality committed by means of the constraction,
equipment and armament of a vessel are not done away with by any
triKSiSl**" **' '^* commission which the government of the belligerent power, benefited
by the violation of neutrality, may afterward have granted to that ressel ;
and the ultimate step by which the offense is completed cannot be admissible a» »
ground for the absolution of the offender, nor can the consummation of his fraud be-
come the means of establishing his innocence. The privilege of exterritorality, ac-
REPORT OF THE AGENT OF THE CXITED STATES. 11
corded to vessels of war, has been admitted into the law of nations, not as an absolute
rig^ht, bat solely as a proceeding founded on the principles of courtesy and mutual
deference between dififerent nations, and therefore can never be appealed to for the
protection of acts done in violation of neutrality.
It will be observed that the Tribunal, instead of adopting the recogni-
tion by the Viscount d'ltajuba of a positive obligation on the part of the
neutral to detain the vessel, in the case supposed, limited itself to ex-
pressing the opinion that, in such case, the neutral would have the right
to make such detention.
4. Supplies of coal.
It was maintained in the American Case that the proofs showed that the
insurgent cruisers were permitted to supply themselves with
coal in British ports in greater quantities and with greater P"" a''.'on'*o(*^the
^ ■m T 'All i»A* ii • 1 United StttBM.
freedom, and with less restrictions than were imposed upon
the United States ; audit was insisted that, in consequence of these
facts, there was an absence of neutrality, which made those ports bases
of hostile operations against the United States under the second rule
of the treaty.
On this point the award says that —
In order to impart to any supplies of coal a character inconsistent wifch the second
role, prohibiting the use of neutral ports or watero, as a base of naval
operations for a belligerent, it is necessary that the said supplies should tnL^nni!'"" '^^ ' '^
1>e oonnected with special circnmstances of time, of persons, or of place,
which may combine to give them such character.
It does not appear by the terms of the award that Great Britain is
held responsible for the acts of any vessel solely in consequence of ille-
gal supplies of coal. The question is, therefore, a speculative one, so far
as relates to this controversy. The opinions of the four arbitrators who
signed the award furnish, however, the explanation of what they mean
when they speak of '^special cy:cnmstances of time, of persons, or of
place."
Mr. Adams says :
I perceive no other way to determine the degree of responsibility of a neutral in these
cases, than by an examination of the evidence to show the intent of the
grant in any specific case. Fraud or falsehood in such a case poisons AJ^m*.'* * °^ '^^"
Fver^ihing it touches. Even indifference may degenerate into willful
negligence, and that wiU impose a burden of proof to relieve it before responsibility
can be relieved.
Count Sclopis says :
1 will not say that the simple fact of having allowed a greater amount of coal than
was necessary to enable a vessel to reach the nearest port of its conn-
fry constitutes in itself a sufficient grievance to call for an indemnity. sd«piT '^ ^'""**
As the lord chancellor of England said on the 12th of June, 1B71, in the
HoQse of Lords, England and the United States equally hold the principle that it is no
violation of the law of nations to furnish arms to a belligerent. But if an excessive sup-
ply of coal is oonnected with other circumstances which show that it was used as a ver-
itable res koBiilUf then there is an infraction of the second article of the treaty. * * *
Thus, for example, when I see the Florida and the Shenandoah Xihoose for their fields
of action, the one the stretch of sea between the Bahama archipelago and Bermuda, to
cruise there at its ease, and the other Melbourne and Hobson's Bay, for the purpose
immediately carried out, of going to the Arctic Seas, there to attack the whaling ves-
Helsy I cannot but regard the snpplies of coal in quantities sufficient for such services,
infractions of the second rule of Article VI.
Mr. Stampfli says of the Sumter :
The permission given to the Sumter to remain and to take in coal at Trinidad does
Dotof Itself constitute a sufficient basis for accusing the British authori-
ties of having failed in their duties as neutrals, because the fact can- 9u,„'5ir * "^ "'^*
not be C4m8iaered by itself, since the Sumter both before and after that
12 ARBITRATION AT GENEVA.
^me was admitted into the ports of many other States where it staid and took in coal
* * * so that it cannot be held that the port of Trinidad served as a base
of operations.
Bat of the Shenandoah he says :
A supply of coal was not a necessary condition of neutral asylum, and in supplying
lier with so large a quantity of coal, the capacity of the ship for making war was in-
creased just as much as by the recruitment of her crew which took place.
The Viscount d'ltajuba, at the thirty-first conference, while signing
viewi.ofvi«ount the dccision, remarked with regard to the recital concern-
d'li^ui* j[jjg ^Y^Q supply of coals, that he is of the opinion that every
government is free to furnish to the belligerents more or less of that
article.
5. The municipal laws of England.
It was maintained in the American Case that the liability of Great Bri
MnmciiMi i«». oi taiu shouldbcmeasured by the rules of international law ; and
it^uJ^tt^'Tuifi,!!' that it could not be escaped by reason of any alleged defi-
^°* ciencies in any internal legislation enacted for the purpose
of enabling the government to fulfill its international duties.
The pickings and arguments on the part of Great Britain are filleil
with denials of this proposition in every possible way, from the opening
Case to the last supplemental argument of Sir Eoundell Palmer.
The award says, " the government of Her Britannic Majesty cannot
justify itself for a failure in due diligence on the insufficiency of the
legal means of action which it possessed.''
6. The Sumter, the Nashville, &c.
It was maintained in the American Case that, under the terms of the
treaty of Washington the parties had agreed to submit to
»,.ot* thll*°»u.>!?!r! the decision of the tribunal of arbitration, not only the
l!^hVtiIrjin«Briir-h claims growing out of the acts of the Florida, the Alabama,
..i.ject.onfc ^j^^ Georgia, and the Shenandoah, which originally pro-
ceeded from ports of Great Britain, but also all claims growing out of
the acts of other cruisers, such as the Kashville, the Sumter, &c., which
could in any way be shown to have used British ports as bases of sup-
plies. The British Case and Counter Case strenuously contended that
the submission was limited to the four vessels first above named. The
tribunal unanimously, including Sir Alexander Cockburn, took no notice
of this claim of Great Britain, and considered all the claims presented
and decided them upon their merits.
i^^r,tIZ^u,uZ^^^ 7. The dissenting opinion of Sir A. Cockburn.
The frankness with which Sir Alexander Cockburn confesses in this.
opinion that he sat on the Tribunal, not as a judge, but as,
w..ut.ve^o"f oJSi " in some sense the representative of Great Britain^ one of the
parties to the controversy, pla<^s before the world the
knowledge of a fact of which, otherwise, it would have been better to
take no public notice.
The chief justice calls legal propositions made by General Gushing, Mr.
Evarts, and Mr. Waite, over their signatures and under the
thJlSJrTMTcJlS responsibility of counsel, '^strange misrepresentations,'' and
"**■ " assertions without the shadow of a foundation.'' He says
that 'Hheir imaginations must have been lively, while their consciences
slept." He finds in a portion of their argument " an extraordinary series
of propositions," and " the most singular confusion of ideas, misrepre-
KEPORT OF THE AGENT OP THE UNITED STATES. IS
sentatio^s of facte, and ignorance both of law and history, which were,
perhaps, ever crowded into the same space.'^ He calls the part of
their argument on which he was commenting, <' an affront offered to
this tribunal, by such an attempt to practice on our supposed credulity
or ignorance," and says that he ^^ is at a loss to understand how counsel,
familiar with English law, can take upon themselves to make statements
of this sort,"
I need not assume in the United States to vindicate the accuracy of
^statements or the soundness of reasonings which have the jhpy ne.d ao na-
guarantee of the names of our distinguished counsel. The '*"^*'°°^
charges are sanctioned by the chief justice alone. I have no hesitation
in expressing my conviction that they would have been in-
-ilignantly repudiated by each and all of his colleagues had re^dfo^^^Xr'thl'
the paper in which they are made been publicly read, or "''*''"*
had its contents been ma<le known at the time when the Tribunal ordered
it to be recorded. This voluminous paper was, in fact, not read in the
Tribunal; its author presented it in bulk without any statement respect-
ing its character; no one had any reason to imagine its contents; and
it was not made public until several days after the dissolation of the
Tribunal and the separation of its members. As Sir Alexander Gock-
barn says of the charges of unfriendliness which were made in the
American Case against members of Lord Palmerston's cabinet, ^^The
world must judge between the accusers and accused.'*
The British arbitrator also charges that the Case of the United States
** pours forth the pent-up venom of national and personal
hate.^ He speaks of the "abuse'' it "freely bestows," and «^ wiu, abuw and
complains of the "hostile and insulting tone thus offensively *""'"''*''•
and unnecessarily adopted toward Great Britain, her statesmen, and her
institutions."
These charges appear to be founded upon the proof of the desire of
various members of the British government for the success xh. r««iK.Q for
of the insurgents in the South, taken from the mouths of "»«'««»»»'^
the speakers and presented for the consideration of the Tribunal, and
upon the legitimate application which was made of that proof in the
issue respecting "dne diligence" which was pending before the tribunal
at Geneva.
A complete vindication of the line of argument in the Case (if any
were needed) could be drawn from Sir Alexander Cock- Tii«ju»ticeof the
bum's paper. "There can be no doubt," he says, "that> lif;^^„''Si"^
these speeches not only expressed the sentiments of the •^^^
speakers, but may be taken to be the exponent of the sentiments gen-
erally entertained at that time ;" and he adds, " though partiality does
not necessarily lead to want of diligence, yet it is apt to do so, and in
case of doubt would turn the scale." With such an admission as this,
it is surprising that a man of the robust sense of the chief justice shoidd
have reproduced the rash imputations of the British press.
That I charged individual members of Lord Palmerston-s cabinet with
a partiality for the insurgents, is true^ equally true is it that I supported
the charge by (roof from their own hps.
But I never questioned their right to entertain such partiality, or to
express it in any manner that suited them. I never even assumed to
criticise its justice before a tribunal created to try other issues. I con-
fined myself strictly to the issues before that body, and I argued that
this partiality of individual members of the government would be apt
to lead to want of diligence, and in case of doubt would turn the scale —
a line of argument which is now admitted to be just.
24 ARBITRATION AT GENEVA.
If I argued that these acts of individual members of the British gov-
wRu-eii .».- emment were inconsistent with the "due dilig^ce'' re-
ffiwit. quired by the treaty, I did only what Lord Bussell had
said to Mr. Adams must be the inevitable result of an arbitration.
" Have the British government acted toith due diligence^ or^ in other toords^
mtb good faith and honesty P wba Hie question by which he said the
liability of England was to be determined.
If I urged that, in any instance, the neutrality of Great Britain was-
Lord westbury ^ot sluccre, I did but pursue the line of argument which
H»t.A6.it. Lord Westbury had defended in advance in the House of
Lords, and I did it nearly in his own language.
I find no fault that Sir Alexander Gockburn does not agree with
me, and with most of the world outside of England, as to the force
of the evidence which was presented respecting these points. That is
a subject on which persons may honestly differ. But I must be per-
mitted to express some surprise that a lawyer of his deservedly great
reputation should have made such a disagreement the cause of totally
unfounded allegations against the Case of the United States and
its author.
With the exception of these personal remarks, this long dissenting
opinion (twice the length of the American case) adds little or nothing
new to the arguments previously put forth by Great Britain in vindi-
cation of her course toward the United States. There are several
material errors in its statements of facts, but I shall not follow its
example of injustice in attributing them to design. All right-thinking
persons will heartily echo the wish with which the paper closes, ^^ that
in the time to come no sense of past wrong unredressed will stand in
the way of the friendly and harmonious relations which should subsist
between two great and kindred nations.''
Thus, surrounded by dif&culties, which at one time seemed insuperable,.
conciuBioD. this great cause has reached its conclusion. Nations have^
ere now, consented to adjust by arbitration questions of figures and
Tk««.oit.of the questions of boundaries ; but the world has had feWjif any,
Lon^oTlhepJikT'oi carUer examples of the voluntary submission to arbitration
•rbitrtuon. Qf g, qucstiou lu whlch a deep-seated conviction of iqjuries
and wrongs which no possible award could compensate, animated a
whole nation. It is out of such sentiments and feelings that wars come.
The United States elected the path of peace. Confident of receiving
justice, they, laid the story of their wrongs before an impartial tribunal.
This story, so grievous in its simple truthfulness, threatened for a time
to break up the peaceful settlement which the parties had promised
each other to make. ^Notwithstanding all obstacles, however,, the great
experiment has been carried to a successful end ; and hereafter it can-
not be denied that questions involving national sentiment may be de-
cided by arbitration, as well as questions of figures.
The commander who had been permitted, by Providence, to guide
some of the greatest military events in history, has thus, in civil life^
assisted in presenting to the nations of the world the most conspicuous
example of the settlement of international disputes by peaceful arbi-
tration.
It is within my personal knowledge that your own counsels hav<^
also had a large share in shaping this great result.
I have, &c.,
J. C. BANCROFT BAVIS.
Hon. Hamilton Fish,
Secretary of State,
II -PROTOCOLS OF THE CONFERENCES OF THE ARBITRATORS.
PBOTOCOL I.
Record of ike proceedings of the tribunal af arbitration under the provisions
cf the treaty between the United States of America and Her Britannic
Majesty^ eonehided on the Sth of May^ A. D, 1871, at the first conference
heUL at Geneva in Switzerland^ on the fifteenth day of December ^ in the-
year of our Lord one thousand eigfU hundred and seventy-one.
The conference was convened at the Hotel de Yilte at Geneva, iu
compliance with notices from Mr. J. C. Bancroft Davis, agent of the*
United States, and Lord Teuterden, agent of Her Britannic Msyesty, iu
the form following :
The undersized having been appointed agent of the United States to attend the
tiibanal of arbitration about to be convened at Geneva under the provis- o n *
ions of the treaty between the United States and Great Britain of the Sth deii^r^'oVcwe*.""
of May last, has the honor to acquaint Count Sclopis that it is proposed by
the Government of the United States that the first meeting of the tribunal should be held
at Geneva, if not inconvenient to the arbitrators, vn the 15th instant.
J. C. BANCROFT DAVIS.
The arbitrators who were present and produced their respective powers, .
which were examined and found to be in good and due form, were :
Charles Francis Adams, esquire, the arbitrator named by the Presi-
dent of the United States of America; the Bight Honorable Sir Alexander
Cockbum, the Lord Chief Justice of England, the arbitrator named by
Her Britannic M^esty; liis excellency Count Sclopis, the arbitrator
mamed by His Majesty the King of Italy : Mr. Jacques Stsempfli, the
arbitrator named by the President of the Swiss Confederation, and his
excellency the Baron d'ltajubd, the arbitrator named by His Majesty
the Emperor of Brazil.
J. C. Bancroft Davis^squire, attended the conference as the agent ot
the United States ; the Kight Honorable Lord Teuterden attended as the
agent of Her Britannic Majesty.
Mr. Adams proposed that Count Sclopis, as being the arbitrator
named by the power first mentioned in the treaty after Great Britain
and the United States, should preside over the labors of the tribunal.
The proposal was seconded by Sir Alexander Cockburn, and was
unanimously adopted, and Count Sclopis, having expressed his acknowl-
edgments, assumed the presidency.
On the proposal of Count Sclopis the tribunal of arbitration requested
the arbitrator named by the President of the Swiss Confederation to
recommend some suitable person to act as the secretary of the tribunal.
The Swiss arbitrator named M. Alexandre Favrot as a suitable per-
son, and M. Alexandre Favrot was thereupon appointed by the tribunal
of arbitration to act as its secretary during the conferences, and entered,
upon the duties of that office.
Mr. J. C. Bancroft Davis then presented in duplicate, to each of the arbi-
trators and to the agent of Great Britain, the printed case of the United.
16 ARBITRATION AT GENEVA.
States, accompauied by the docaineDts, official correspoQdeiice, and other
evidence on which they rely.
Lord Tenterden in like manner presented to each of the arbi-
trators and to the agent of the United States the printed case of the
government of Her Britannic Majesty, accompanied by the documents,
official correspondence, and other evidence on which it relies.
The tribnnal of arbitration thereupon directed that the respective
counter cases, additional documents, correspondence, and evidence called
for or permitted by the fourth article of the treaty should be delivered
to the secretary of the tribunal at the hall of the conference in the Hotel
de Yille at Geneva, for the arbitrators and for the respective agents on
or before the 15th day of April next.
The arbitrators further directed that either party desiring, under the
provisions of the fourth article of the treaty, to extend the time for de-
livering the counter cases, documents, correspondence, and evidence,
shall make application to them through the secretary, and that the sec-
retary shall thereupon convene a conference at Oeneva at an early day
to suit the convenience of the respective arbitrators, and that the notice
thereof shall be given to the agent of the other party.
The tribunal of arbitration proceeded to direct that applications by
either i>arty, under the provisions of the fourth article of the treaty, for
copies of reports or documents specified or alluded to, and in the exclu-
sive possession of the other party, shall be made to the agent of the
other party with the same force and effect as if made to the tribunal of
arbitration.
The tribunal of arbitration further directed that, should either party,
in accordance with the provisions of the fourth article, call upon the
other party, through the arbitration, to produce the originals or certi-
fied copies of any papers adduced as evidence, such application shall be
made by written notice thereof to the secretary within thirty days after
the delivery of the cases, and that thereupon the secretary shall transmit
to the agent of the other party a copy of the request ; and that it shall be
the duty of the agent of the other party to deliver said originals or certified
copies to the secretary, as soon as may be practicably convenient.
The arbitrators also agreed that for the purpose of deciding any ques-
tion arising upon the foregoing rules, the presence of three of their
number shall be sufficient.
The conference was adjourned to the following day, 16th of December,
at 3 o'clock p m.
J. C. BANCROFT DAVIS.
TENTERDEN.
ALEX. FAVROT,
Secretary,
PROTOCOL II.
Record oj the proceedings of the arbitration at the second conference lield
at Geneva in Switzerland on the 16th day of December j A. b. 1871.
The conference was held pursuant to adjournment. All the arbitrators
AcUoumment to "wcre prcscut.
j««.i». ]^p^ J.C.Bancroft Davis and Lord Tenterden attended
the conference as agents of the United States and of Her Britannic Ma-
jesty, respectively.
The record of the proceedings of the conference held on the 15th in-
PROTOCOLS OF THE CONFERENCES. 17
staut was read and approved, and the secretary was directed to attest
it. Mr. J. O. Bancroft Davis and Lord Tenterden were requested also
to sign this and all subsequent records as agents of their respective
governments.
The tribunal of arbitration directed that when an adjournment of the
conference should be entered, it should be entered as an adjournment
until the loth day of June next, subject to a prior call by the secretary
as provided for in the proceedings at the first conference.
The tribunal then directed the secretary to make up the record of
tlie proceedings at the second conference as far as completed, which
was done, and the record was read and approved.
The tribunal of arbitration then adjourned to meet a:t Geneva, on the
15th day of June next, unless sooner convened by the secretary, in the
manner provided in the proceedings at the first conference.
J. C. BANCROFT DAYIS.
TENTERDEN.
ALEX. FAVROT, Secretaire.
PROTOCOL in.
Record of the proceedings of the tribunal of arhitration at the third confer-
ence held at Oeneva, in Sivitzerlandj on the 15th day of June, 1872.
The conference was held pursuant to adjournment. All the arbitrators
were present.
Mr. J. C. Bancroft Davis and Lord Tenterden attended the conference
as agents of the United States and Her Britannic Majesty, respectively.
Mr. J. C. Bancroft Davis then delivered in duplicate to each of the
arbitrators, and to Lord Tenterden, the agent of Her Britan- i>«,.,„, ^f f^„^^
nic Majesty, a i>rinted argument, showing the points and i^*" "^«"'"«««
referring to the evidence on which his Government relies.
Lord Tenterden then, on behalf of Her Britannic Majesty's govern-
ment, presented the note, of which a copy is annexed, re- Bnt..». mouonfor
questing an adjournment of the tribnnal for the reasons «^"»'^«'"^''^
therein stated, for such a period as might enable a supplementary con-
vention to be concluded and ratified between the United States and Her
Britannic Majesty.
Mr. Bancroft Davis stated that he could not say what would be the
views of his Government on this motion until he should know the time
for which the adjournment was asked.
Lord Tenterden stated that Her Britannic Majest^^'s government be-
lieved that, in order to afford time for the consideration of a supple-
mentary convention by the Senate of the United States in their session
commencing in December next, and for its subsequent consideration by
Her Britannic Majesty's government, and for its ratification by the high
contracting parties respectively, it would be requisite that the adjourn-
ment should be for a period of eight months, but that power might be
reserved for the arbitrators to meet at any earlier date, upon being
convened for that purpose by the secretary of the tribunal, upon the
joint request, in writing, of the agents of the two governments.
Mr. Bancroft Davis said that his instructions did not yet enable him to
state to the arbitrators the views of the Government of the United States
oa this motion in full. He said that he was in telegraphic communica-
2b
18 ARBITRATION AT GENEVA.
tion with bis Government, and he asked an adjournment until Monday,
the 17th instant.
The tribunal decided that the protocols should be signed by the presi-
dent and secretary of the tribunal and the agents of the two govern-
ments.
The conference was then adjourned to Monday, the 17th day of June,
at 2 o'clock.
FREDERICK SCLOPIS.
J. O. BANCROFT DAVIS.
TENTERDEN.
ALEX. FAVROT, Secretary.
ANNEX.
The undersigned agent of Her Britannic INIajesty is instructed by Her
Majestj V government to state to Count Schjns,* the arbitrator named
by His Majesty the King of Italy, that they regret to be under the
necessity of infoi*ming the arbitrators that the difference between Her
Majesty's government and the Government of the United States, referred
to in the note which the undersigned had the honor to address to Count
Sclopis when presenting the British counter case on the 15th of April
last, has not yet been removed.
Her Majesty's government have, however, been engaged in negotia-
tions with the Government of the United States, which have continued
down to the present time, for the solution of the dilficulty which has
thus arisen ; and they do not abandon the hope that, if further time
were given for that purpose, such a solution might be practicable.
Under these circumstances, the course which Her Majesty's govern-
ment would respectfully request the tribunal to take is to adjourn the
present meeting for such a period as may enable a supplementary con-
vention to be still concluded and ratified between the high contracting
parties.
Having lodged the present application, the undersigned is instructed
to withhold the written or printed argument which the undersigned, as
agent of Her Majesty, is directed to put in under the 5th article of the
treaty, although that argument has been duly prepared and is in the
hands of the undersigned.
The undersigned is further directed to say that Her Msijesty's gov-
ernment (while they would consider the tribunal to have full power to
proceed at the end of the period of adjournment, if the difference be-
tween the high contracting parties should then have been removed, not-
withstanding the non-delivery on this day of the argument by the un-
dersigned) continue, while requesting this adjournment, to reserve all
Her Majesty's rights, in the event of an agreement not being finally
arrived at, in the same manner as was expressed in the note addressed
by the undersigned to Count Sclopis on the loth of April.
The undersigned has the honor to renew to Count Sclopis the assur-
ance of his highest consideration.
TENTERDEN.
Geneva, June 15, 1872,
* A similar note was addressed to each of the arbitrators.
PROTOCOLS OF THE CONFERENCES. 19
PEOTOCOL IV.
Record of the proceedings of the tribunal of arhUration at the fourth con-
ference held at Geneva^ in Switzerland^ on tlie 17th day of June, 1872.
.The couference was held pursuant to adjournment. All the arbitrators
were present.
Mr. J. C. Bancroft Davis and Lord Tenterden attended
the conference as agents of the United States and Uer Britannic Majesty,
respectively.
The protocol of the last conference was read and approved, and was
signed by the president and secretary of the tribunal and the agents of
the two governments.
Mr. Bancroft Davis stated that he was still without definite instruc-
tions from his Government regarding the request of the British agent
for adjournment, and suggested a further adjournment of the tribunal
until Wednesday, the nineteenth instant.
Lord Tenterden said that he could make no objection. The conference
was then adjourned to Wednesday, the 19th instant, at 2 o'clock.
FKEDERICK SOLOPIS.
J. G. BANCROFT DAVIS.
TENTERDEN.
ALEX. FAVROT, Secretary.
PROTOCOL V.
Record of the proceedings of the tribunal of arbitration at the fifth confer-
ence held at Oeneva^ in Switzerland^ on tJte Idth of JunCj 1872.
The conference was held pursuant to adjournment. All the arbitra-
tors were present.
Mr. J. C. Bancroft Davis and Lord Tenterden attended cia^rr'"5hn"oJirtrt
the conference as agents of the United States and Her for'romp!.iition'*If
Britannic Majesty, respectively. *^'""*"*
The protocol of the last conference was read and approved, and was
signed by the president and secretary of the tribunal and the agents of
the two governments.
Count Sclopis, as president of the tribunal, inquired whether Mr.
Bancroft Davis had yet received definitive instructions from his Govern-
ment.
Mr. Bancroft Davis replied that he had not.
Count Sclopis then, on behalf of all the arbitrators, made the follow-
ing statement :
The application of the agent of Her Britannic M{\jesty's government being now be-
fore the arbitrators, the president of the tribunal (Count Sclopis) proposes to make the
following communication on the part of the arbitrators to the parties interested :
The arbitrators wish it to be understood that in the observations which they are
about to make they have in view solely the application of the agent of Her Britannic
Majesty's government, which is now before them, for an adjournment, which might be
prolonged till the month of February in next year ; and the motives for that application,
viz, the difference of opinion which exists between Her Britannic Mtgesty's govern-
ment and the Government of the United States as to the competency of the tribunal,
under the treaty of Washington, to deal Avith the claims advanced in the case of the
United States in respect of losses under the several heads of— Ist, '^ The losses in the
transfer of the American commercial marine to the British flag;" 2d, "The enhanced
payments of insurance;" and 3d, '*The prolongation of the war, and the addition of a
20 ARBITRATION AT GENEVA.
large sum to the cost of the war and the suppression of the rebellion ;" and the hope
which Her Britannic Majesty's government does not abandon, that if sufficient time
were given for that purpose, \i solution of the difficulty which has thus arisen, by the
negotiation of a supplementary convention between the two governments, might be
found practicable.
The arbitrators do not propose to express or imply any opinion ui)on the point thus
in dift'erence between the two governments as to the interpretation or efl'ect of the
treaty; but it seems to them obvious that the substantial object of the adjournment
must be to give the two governments an opportunity of determining whether the
claims in question shall or shall not be submitted to the decision of the arbitrators,
and that any difference between the two governments on this point may make the
adjournment unproductive of any useful ettect, and, after a delay of many moutliH,
during which both nations may be kept in a state of painful suspense, may end in a
result which, it is to be presumed, both governments w<mld equally deplore, that of
making this arbitration wholly abortive. This being so, the arbitrators think it right
to state that, after the most careful perusal of all that has been urged on the part of
the Government of the United States in respect of these claims, they have arrived,
ifldividuallv and collectivelv, at the conclusion that these claims do not constitute,
upon the principles of international law applicable to such cases, good foundation for
an award ot compensation or computation of damages between nations, and should ,
upou such principles, he wholly excluded from the consideration of the tribunal in
making its award, even if there were no disagreement between the two government* as
to the competency of the tribunal to decide thereon.
With a view to the settlement of the other claims to the consideration of which by
the tribunal no exception has been taken on the part of Her Britannic Migesty's gov-
ernment, the arbitrators have thought it desirable to lay before the parties this ex-
pression of the views they have formed upon the question of public law involved, in
order that after this declaration by the tribunal it may be considered by the Govern-
ment of the United States whether any course can be adopted respecting the first-men-
tioned claims which would relieve the tribunal from* the necessity of deciding upou
the present application of Her Britannic Majesty's government.
Count Sclopis added that it was tbe inteution of the tribunal that
this statement shouhl be considered for the present to be confidential.
Count Sclopis then asked whether the agents or either of them wished
to say anything touching the declaration just made.
Mr. Bancroft Davis said that he was necessarily without instructions
to meet the contingency which had arisen from the action thus taken by
the arbitrators. He therefore left it with the tribunal to say whether,
in view of this fact, it ought not of its own motion to make an adjourn-
ment sufticient to aftbrd time for the proper consideration of the new
position created by the announcement of the tribunal.
The tribunal then ordered this conference to adjourn until Wednesday
the 2Gth instant,, at 2 o'clock in the afternoon.
niEDERICK SCLOPIS.
J. C. BANCROFT DAVIS.
TENTEKDEN.
ALEX, r AYBOT, Secretartf.
TKOTOCOL YI.
Record of the proccedinga of the trihtinal of arbitration at the sixth con-
ference held at Geneva^ in i<ivitzer!and, on the 2oth of Jtine, 1872.
The conference was held pursuant to a call by the president, Count
TiK-i n;t..i «t..., Sclopis. All the arbitrators were present.
a.V.^«i'.'n'ti.J'd" Mr. J. C. Bancroft Davis and Lord Tenterden attended
the conference as agents of the United States and Her
Britannic Majesty, respectively.
Count Sclopis, as president of the tribunal, stated that he had re-
PROTOCOLS OF THE CONFERENCES. 21
ceived from Mr. Bancroft Davis the information that he was prepared
to communicate to the tribunal the action authorized by his Govern-
ment respecting the declaration made by the arbitrators at the last con-
ference.
Count Sclopis added that, being desirous of advancing the work of
the tribunal, he had, therefore, convoked the conference this day, in-
stead of Wednesday, the day to which the adjournment had been
made.
Mr. Bancroft Davis stated as follows :
The declaration made by the tribunal, individually and collectively, respecting the
olainiB presented by the United States for the award of the tribunal for — 1st. " The
lcA&^« in the transfer of the American commercial marine to the British flag ;'' 2d. " The
«*iihanced payments of insurance ;" and 3d. " The prolongation of the war and the a<l-
dition of a lar^e sum to the cost of the war and the suppression of the rebellion," is
accepted by tue President of the United States as determinative of their judgment
upon the import.ant question of public law involved.
The agent of the United States is authorizeil to say that, consequently, the above-
nientioned claims will not be further insisted upon bef<»re the tribunal by the United
StatevS, and may be excluded from all consideration in any award that may be made.
Lord Tenterden then said :
I will inform my government of the declaration made by the arbitrators on the 19th
instant, and of the statement now made by the agent of the United States, and request
tbeir instructions.
The conference was then adjourned to Thursday, the 27th instant, at
11 o'clock in the morning.
FREDERICK SCLOPIS.
J. C. BANCROFT DAVIS.
TENTERDEN.
ALEX. FAYROT, Secretary.
PROTOCOL YIl.
Reconl of the proceedings of the tribunal of arbitration at the seventh
conference^ held at Geneva^ in Sicitzerland^ on the llth of June, 1872.
The conference was held pursuant to [adjournment. All the arbitra-
tors were present. Deci-ionmadcofl?-
Mr. J. C. Bancroft Davis and Lord Tenterden attended :::!;,, Slt^s^'R.
the conference as agents of the United States and ller rr^'ra^'Mu;;::;;
Britannic, Majesty, respectively. '^^ ""•*
The protocol of the last conference was read and approved, and was
signed by the president and secretary of the tribunal, and the agents
of the two governments.
Count Sclopis, as president of the tribunal, inquired whether Lord
Tenterden had received the instructions from his government for which
be had said that he would apply at the last conference.
Lord Tenterden then read the following statement :
•*The undersigned, agent of Her Britannic Majesty, is anthorize<l by Her Majesty's
govemment to state that Her Majesty's government find in the commnnication on the
part of the arbitrators, recorded in the protocol of their proceedings of the 19th in-
stant, nothing to which they cannot assent, consistently with the view of the inter-
pretation and effect of the treaty of Washington hitherto maintained by them ; and
being informed of the statement made on the 25th instant by the agent ot the United
States, that the several claims particularly mentioned in that statement will not be
further insisted upon before the tribunal by the United States, and may be excluded
22 ARBITRATION AT GENEVA.
from all coDHideration in any award that may be made; and assuming that the arbi-
trators will, npon such statement, think tit now to declare that the said several claims
are, and from henceforth will be, wholly excludod from their consideration, and will
embody such declaration in their protocol of this day's proceedings ; they have in-
structed the undersigned, upon this being done, to request leave to withdraw the
nx>plicstion made by nim to the tribunal on the 15th instant for such an adjournment
as might enable a supplementary convention to be concluded and ratified between the
high contracting parties ; and to request leave to deliver the printed argument, now
in the hands of the undersigned, which has been prepared on the part of Her Britannic
Majesty's government under the tifth article of the treaty with reference to the other
claims, to the consideration of which by the tribunal no exception has been taken on
the part of Her Majesty's government.
^' TENTERDEN."
Mr. Bancroft Davis said that he made uo objection to the granting of
the request made by Lord Tenterden to be permitted to withdraw his
application for an adjournment, and to file the argument of Iler Bri-
tannic Majesty's government.
Count Sclopis, on behalf of all the arbitrators, then declared that the
said several claims for indirect losses mentioned in the statement made
by the agent of the United States on the 25th instant and referred to
in the statement just made by the agent of Her Britannic Majesty, are,
and from henceforth shall be, wholly excluded from the consideration of
the tribunal, and directed the secretary to embody this declaration in
the protocol of this day's proceedings.
He at the same time informed Lord Tenterden that the tribunal as-
sented to his request for leave to withdraw his application for a pro-
longed adjournment, and also to his request for leave to deliver the
printed argument which had been prepared on the part of Her Britannic
Majesty's government.
Lord Tenterden then presented copies of the argument in duplicate
to each of the arbitrators and to the agent of the United States.
Count Sclopis stated that the tribunal no longer desired the proceed-
ings to be considered confidential so far as publication of them by the
United States and British governments is concerned.
He then proceeded to read an address as follows :
Messieurs : Au moment ofi le nceud qui mena^iait d'entraver pour longtemps encore
I'oxi^cution du trait<S de Washington vient d'etre si heureusenient tranche, h I'heure oti
nos travaux vont prendre un cours libre et r^gnlier, permettez-moi de vous dire, mes-
sieurs et tres-honords coUf'gues, combien j'apprecie I'honneur de singer avec vous dans
ce tribunal d' arbitrage, sur lei^uel sont iixds aujourd'hui les regards du monde civilise.
Laissez-moi ensuite vous exprimer tout ce que j'<5prouve de reconnaissance pour la
marque flatteuse do conhunce qu'il vous a plu de m'accorder en m'appelant j\ occuper
ce fauteuil.
Je comprends parfaitement tout le prix de cette distinction si pen rodrit45e ; mais je
comprends mieux encore le besoiu que j'aurai d'etre soutenu par le concours de vos
lumi^res, et par Tappui de votre indulgence dans I'exercice des fonctions que vous
m^avez confides. Ce sera a vous que je le devrai, si je ne vais pas paraltre trop au-des-
sous de ma tilche.
La reunion de oe tribunal d'arbitrage sij^nale, a elle seule, une nouvelle direction
imprimde aux iddes qui gouveruent la politique des nations les plus avancdes sur la
voie de la civilisation.
Nous sommes arrives a une dpoque oil, dans les sphi-res les plus dlevdes de la politique,
Vesprit de moderation et le sentiment dVquitd comniencent partout k pr6valoir sur les
tendances des vieilles routines d'un arbitraire insolent on d'une indili'drence coupable.
Diminuer les occasions de faire la guerre, attdnuer les malheurs qu*e11e tralne & sa saite,
placer les intdrfits de I'humanitd au-dessus de ceux de la politique, voWii I'opuvre vers
laquelle se dirigent toutes les grandes intelligences, tons les cceurs haut places. Aassi
avec quel bonheur n'a-t-on pas 8alu6 le vcpu si noblement exprime par le congn^s de Parts
en 1856, que les <Stats entre lesquels s'dlt^verait nn dissentiment sdrieux, avant d'en
appeler aux armes, eussent reconrs, en tant que les circonstances Padmettraient, aux
bons offices des puissances amies ! Que de bons effets n'avait-on pas h attendre de la
declaration do ce meme congr^s concemant I'abolition de la course, et le respect de la
propridte privdef Eufin noiis ne saurious oublier ici cette convention de Geneve, qui
PROTOCOLS OF THE CONFERENCES. 23
EftTTint & placer sous la protection sp^ciale du droit des gens lea 6\iiuh de la cliarit<^ sur
» champs de bataille.
On a bien dCl regretter que les vues si droites et si sai^es du congr^s de Paris n'aient
pas ^t^ promptement second<^.e8 paries ^v^nements. De cruels (l<^mentis ont 6t6 donnas
aax aspirations des &mes d'elite;' niuis Tautorit^ morale des priucipes i>roclam6s k
cette 6poqne ne s'est point affuiblie.
Gr&ce ^ rinitiative des houimes d'etat qui president anx destini^es de I'Amdrique et
de TAngleterre, cette id^e g6n<?reu8e coinnience a porter ses fruits.
Le grand essai de Tapplication des regies austi^res et calmes du droit anx qnestions
ardentes de la politique va se faire. L*histoire cont-cmporaiue racontera a la post^ritd
que. m^me dans la chaleur des plus vives recnminatiouM, on a toujours song^ des deux
c/Vtds de FAtlantiqne k teuir oavertes les voies d'uu accommodemeut accep^ble par les
amis de la paix et dn progr^s.
A travers des n<^gociations n^cessaireraent longues, sous Taction des courants variables
de ['opinion pnblique, inevitables chez le^ gouveruements ^ base populaire, le but de
ces magnanimes edbrts ne fut jamais perdu de vue. Personne, certes, ne pouvait en
coutester Tutilit^ ; mais d'en venir au point d'accepter purement et simplement le sj-
fiteme de Tarbitragc, de reuoncer h ce privilege, si cher aux ambitions vulgaires, de se
faire justice de sa main, voilii ce qui exigeait une rare fermetd de conviction, un
d6vonemcnt ii toute <^preuve aux iut^^rdts de rhnmanit^. Anssi le premier ministre
d'Angleterre a-t-il eu raison de parler du traits de Washington dans des termes qui
caract^risent a la fois la grandeur et les diflScultes de Tentreprise. " II se peut/' disait-
il, " que ce soit une esperance trop ^clat-ante pour fttre r^;ilis<^e dans ce monde de
mis^res oil nons vivons; Texp^^rience dn moins est digue de I'etfort. On recherche, sMl
est possible, de sonmettre ces conilits d'opinion entre deux nations au jugeraent d'un
tribnnal de raison, au lieu de Tarbitrage sanglant des amies. L'histoire se souviendra
» regard des Etats-Unis et du Koyaume-Uni que, ayaut si vider de s^^rieux conflits, et
Be sentant pen disposes de part et d'autre ^ c6der le terrain, ils se sent n^anmoins ap*
pliqn^s h assurer la paix, et non-seulement h r^gler leurs propres conilits, mais aussi ik
donner un exemple qui sera f^cond en bienfaits pour les autres nations.'''
On a dit que le triomphe d'nue id^e utile n'est jamais qu'une question de date. F^-
llcitons-uous, messieurs, d'assister k la ri^alisation d'un dessein qui doit Atre f^.cond des
meillenrs r<5bultats ; espdrons qu'il tieudra dans I'avenir tout ce qu'il promet aigour-
d'hni.
Nous avons entendu ce cri terrible 'Ma force prime le droit:" c'est un d^fi port^ h la
civilisation. Nous voyous maintenant la politique s'adresser ii la justice, pour ne pas
abnser de la force ; c'est un hommage que la civilisation doit recevoir avec bonheur.
Ne noQS plaignons pas trop si les questions que nous sommes appel^ii ^ r^soudre nous
arriventii la suite d'agitations prolong6es. Reconnaissons plut6t Timportance des do-
cuments qui nous ont ^t^ fournis et des raisonnements dont ils ont 6t-6, accompagn^.
Les longnes investigations pr^parent les ineilleures solutions. On navigue plus
siirement sur les rivi^res qui ont (il6 le mieux sond<^es.
Le droit des gens a 6t6 trop souvent regard^ cotnme un sol mobile, snr 1e<|nel, an
moment oil Von croit avancer, le pied glisso en arri^re. Serait-ce un espoir indiscret
que celni de parveuir par nos eiforts li rendre ce sol un pen mieux raffermi f
L*objet de nos dolib<$ rat ions demande des Etudes aussi varices que sdrieuses. Nous
aarons ^ Texaminer li des points de vue diff6 rents. Ce sera tant6t aveo la large per-
ception de I'homme d'etat, tautAt avec TaVil scrntateur d'un president aux assises,
toajonrs avec un profond sentiment d'^quit^et avec une impartialit4$ absolue.
Nous nous promettons beaucoup de I'aide euipress<^e des agents des deux puissances
qni ont en recours ^ ce tribunal ; leur haute iutuUigence et leur z«^le ^clair^ nous sout
^^alement connus.
Enfin le tribunal se confie dans I'assistance des oonseils des hautes parties pr6sentes
4 la barre, de ces juriscon suites ^luinont'S dont le nom vant un 4logo. Nous nous at-
tendons qui'ls coopt^reront franchement avec nous dans ce qui doit 6tre, non-seulement
an acte de bonne justice, mais encore un travail de grande pacification.
Paissions-nous r^pondre compl6tement aux louaLles intentions des pnissances qui
Bona ont honor<Ss de leur choix; puissious-nous remplir, avec I'aide de Diou, une mis-
sion qni mette ftn a de longs et p6nibles diiferends; qui, en rdglant de graves inUSrdts,
apaise de doulourenses <Smotions, et qui ne soit pas sans quelque heureuso influence sur
lemaintien de la paix du moude et les progr^s de la civilisation.
~
*"In the performance of a- melancholy duty," dit Sir Robert Phillimore dans la
preface h la denzi^me <$dition des Commentaries upon International Law, 1871, " I am
obliged to close this chronicle of events by the admission that the suggestion contained
in the last protocol to the treaty of Paris, 1856, has remained a dead-letter, except per-
haps in the case of Luxemburg. Neither of the belligerents in the present horrible war
wonld listen to the suggestion of such an arbitration."
* Discoars prononcd par Monsieur Gladstone au banqnet d'installation dn nonyeau
lord-maire, le 9 novembre 1871.
24 ARBITRATION AT GENEVA.
Vo8 vrenx, tii'S-lioiior^s collogues, s^accordoront sans doute avec les miens pour que
TeBsai que ron va faire serve ti <?carter dans Tavenir les occaBioDB de luttes sanglanti^a
et h raii'erinir I'crapire de la raison.
Dans cette douce prdvisioD, j'aime t\ rappeler ces parolew dn heros de TAiiK^rique, de
George Washingtou: "SMI ya une v<^rit«S fortement <?tjiblie, c'est <iu'il y a ici-bas un
lien indissoluble entre les puree uiaximeH d'uue politique honufte et uiagnauiiue et le^
Bolides r^^compenses de la prosp^rite et du bouheur public."^
Lord Tenterden then stated tbat Sir Roundell Palmer, Her Britannic
Majesty's counsel, had prepared, for the consideration of the tribunal,
a statement of certain points of importance, as to which he desires to
have an opportunity of submitting to the tribunal further arguments,
in answer to those contained in the argument of the United States de-
livered on the loth instant ; and that 8ir Ivoundell Palmer would now,
with the permission of the tribunal, read such statement, of which,
with a translation which would be prepared without delay, copies will
be delivered to the several arbitrators and to the agent of the United
States in the course of the day ; and, as the preparjition of any further
arguments on those, or any other points, will ncessarily require some
time to be allowed, he begged respectfully to suggest that the counsel
on both sides should be informed of the time which the tribunal will be
willing to allow, before requiring their further attendance for the pur-
pose of any arguments. If the interval vso granted can be extended to
the first of August next, it is believed that this will meet the views of
the counsel and agents of both parties, and mav probably enable the
counsel, when again before the tribunal, to discharge their duty in a
shorter time than might otherwise be requisite.
Sir Roundell Palmer then read a statement.
Mr. Bancroft Davis then said that upon being furnished with a copy
of the paper, now i)resented on the part of Iler Britannic Majesty's
counsel, he w^ould lay the same before the counsel of the United States,
and would present their views to the tribunal after such consultation.
Count Sclopis then stated that the tribunal had, at the request of the
agent of Her Britannic ^lajesty, granted i)ermission to Sir Koundell
Palmer to read the statement requesting the tribunal to authorize him
to furnish the arbitrators with further arguments on the points therein
specified, and that, with reference to this request, Mr. Adams, as one of
the arbitrators, had suggested a preliminary ([uestion, viz, whether
nnder the terms of Article V of the treaty of Washington it is compe-
tent for the agents or counsel to make requests of this nature, and that
the tribunal, after discussion, and having in view the precise terms of
the treaty, had decided that the arbitrators alone have the right, if
they desire further elucidation with regard to any point, to require a
written or printed statement or argument, or oral argumeiit by counsel
upon it, under the terms of the said article.
The conference was then adjourned until Friday, the 28th instant, at
11 o'clock a. m.
FREDERICK SCLOPIS,
J. C. BANCKOFT DAVIS.
TENTERDEN.
ALEX. FAYROT, Secretary.
'Diacours prononcd le 30 avril 1789 dans la s<5iiuce dn S^uat amoricain, lors de la
proclauiatiou de Wasliingtou t^ la prc^sideuce, et do John Adams i\ la vice-pr^^sidence,
des £tatd-Uni8.
PROTOCOLS OF THE CONFERENCES. 25
rilOTOCOL VIII.
Record of the proceedings of the tribunal of arbitration at the eighth
conference, lield at Geneva^ Switzerland, on the 2Sth of June, 1872.
The conference was held pursuant to adjournment. All the arbitrators
and the agents of the two governments were present.
The protocol of the last conference was read and approved, and was
signed by the president aud secretary of the tribunal and the agents of
the two governments.
Sir Alexander Cockburu, as one of the arbitrators, then proposed to
the tribunal to require a written or printed statement or s.r a. okn r„
argument by the counsel of the two governments for further ;;;::;^^ ^01^.;'-
elucidation on the following points, viz : ""^*
1. What is the "due diligence'' required from a neutral state,
according to the general rules of international law, and according to
the rules of the sixth article of the treaty of AVashington ?
2. What were the international obligations of neutral states in
respect to the construction, sale, and fitting out, within neutral territory,
of ships intended for warlike use by a belligerent, independently of the
municipal legislation of the neutral state, and of the rules laid down by
the tjeaty of Washington !
3. What rights are conferred upon a belligerent power by the muni-
cipal legislation of a neutral state for the maintenance of its neutrality,
if such legislation exceeds the limits of the obligations previously im-
posed upon neutral States by international law f
4. Is a neutral state under any international obligation to detain in,
or exclude from, its ports vessels fitted out in violation of its neutrality,
after such vessels have been commissioned as public ships of war by a
belligerent power, whether such power be or be not recognized as a
sovereign state ?
5. Whether Her Majesty's proclamation of neutrality, recognizing the
belligerency of the Confederate States, is in any, and what, way material
to the question of the liability of Great Britain for losses sustained by
the United States, in consequence of the acts of the vessels referred to
in the treaty of Washington ?
6. Whether the laws of Great Britain, during the civil war, were, or
were not, sufficient, if properly enforced, for the fulfillment of Her Bri-
tannic Majesty's neutral obligations!
7. If a vessel, which has been fitted out in violation of the neutrality
of a neutral state, has escaped from the neutral territory, through some
want of due diligence on the part of the neutral government, ought
such neutral state to be held responsible to the other belligerent for
captures made by such vessel f
If so, to what period does this responsibility extend? May it be
modified or terminated by circumstances afterward supervening, (as,
for instance, by assistance afterward rendered to the vessel by an inde-
pendent power, without which her capacity for warlike purposes would
have ceased, or by her entrance into a port of the belligerent to whom
she belongs,) or does it necessarily extend to the end of the war f
rurtheniiore, does this responsibility still exist, when the persons
who made such captures were insurgent citizens of the state against
which they waged war, to whom, upon the conclusion of the war, such
illegal acts have been condoned ?
8. If a vessel, which has not been fitted out or armed in violation gf
26 ARBITRATION AT GENEVA.
the Deutrality of a neutral state, is afterward permitted to receive sap-
X>lies of coal and repairs in a neutral port, does the neutral state, in
whose port she receives such supplies and repairs, incur on that account
a responsibility for her subsequent captures, or any of them ?
After deliberation a majority of the tribunal decided not to require
such statement or argument at present.
The tribunal then decided that, in the course of their discussions and
deliberations, the agents should attend the conferences, accompanied by
the counsel of their respective governments, except in cases when tbe
tribunal should think it advisable to conduct their discussions and de-
liberations with closed doors.
The tribunal then determined to permit publicity to be given to the
statement made by the agent of Her Britannic Majesty at the third
conference, the declaration of the arbitrators made at the fifth confer-
ence, the subsequent statements of the agent of the United States made
at the sixth conference, and of the agent of Her Britannic Majesty made
at the seventh conference, and the address of the president of the tribu-
nal delivered at the seventh conference.
The tribunal then adjourned until Monday, the loth proximo, at 2
o'clock in the afternoon.
FKEDERICK SCLOPIS.
J. C. BANCROFT DAVIS.
TENTERDEN.
ALEX. FAVROT, Secretary.
PROTOCOL IX.
Record of the proceedings of the tribunal of arbitration at the conference
held at Geneva^ in Switzerland^ on the Wth of July^ 1872.
The conference was held pursuant to adjournment. All the arbitrators
and the agents of the two governments were present.
The protocol of the last conference was read and approved, and was
signed by the president and secretary of the tribunal and the agents of
the two governments.
Count Sclopis, as president, said that it would be necessary in the
Order of proceed- ^^st placc to dctcrminc the method and order of proceeding
""'' in the consideration of the subjects referred to the tribunal.
Mr. Stjempfli stated that he had prepared, and proposed to submit-^
for the adoption of the tribunal, a written programme on this question.
After discussion the consideration of this programme was deferred to
the next conference.
The tribunal then adjourned until Tuesday, the 16th instant, at 2
o'clock in the afternoon.
FREDERICK SCLOPIS.
J. C. BANCROFT DAVIS.
TENTERDEN
ALEX. FAVROT, Secretary.
PROTOCOLS OF THE CONFERENCES.
27
PROTOCOL X.
Be<ord of the proceedings of ths irihuiial of arbitration at the tenth con-
ference held at Geneva^ in Switzerland^ on the lUh of July, 1872.
The conference was held pursuant to adjournment. All the arbitra-
tors and the agents of the two governments were present. ^^^^^ ^^ ^^^
The protocol of the last conference was read and ap- i~is. Mr^st*mpni^.
proved, and was signed by the president and secretary of ^;^™jj/*"*;;'iJ„^**"
the tribunal and the agents of the two governments. '''" " •r.umenu
The following programme, submitted by Mr. Stj«rapfii at the last
meeting, was taken into consideration :
A^— Indications gMralea.
I. Qaestion ii decider.
II. Delimitation de8 fuits.
III. Principes g<5ueraux.
B. — Decman relative dchaeundes cro'ifteure —
Observations preliminaircs.
I. Le Sumter:
a Fairs.
b CoDsiderants.
c Jugemeut.
II. Le XashciUe :
a Faits.
b Consid^^rantH.
c Jugement.
III. Le Florida :
a Faits.
b Consido rants.
c Jugemeut.
IV. V Alabama:
a Faits.
b Con8id<^rantB.
c'Jagement.
V. Le Retribution :
a Faitfl.
b Cou8id^rant8.
c Jugement.
Sir Alexander Gockburn, one of the arbitrators, submitted the fol-
lowing propositions to the consideration of the tribunal :
I. That the complaint of the Government of the United States is of a threefold
character, and may be 8t>ated under the three following heads, viz :
1. That, by want of due diligence on the part of the British government, vessels of
war were snnered to be equipped in ports of Her Majesty, and to depart therefrom, to
the injury of American commerce ;
2. That such vessels, having been again found in British ports or waters, were not
^ised or detained, but were suffered to go forth again on the same destructive
service ;
3. That such vej»8els received undue assistance, or were permitted to remain an
unduly long time, in ports within Her Majesty's dominions.
II. That on each of these heads of complaint the decision of the tribunal must
depend, not only on the fact« relating to each vessel, but also on the principles of
international law applicable to the particular subject.
III. That the rational, logical, and most convenient course to be pursued will be,
before proceeding to deal with each of these heads of complaint, to consider and
determine what are the principles of law applicable to the subject, and by which the
decision of the tribunal must ultimately be determined.
VI. Le Georgia:
a Faits.
b Consid^rauts.
c Jugement.
VII. Le Tallahassee y on le Ohist^:
a Faits.
b Consid<^rants.
c Jugement.
VIII. Le Chickamauga :
a Faits.
b Consid<^rants.
, c Jugement.
IX. Le Shenandoah :
a Faits.
b Consid(^rant8.
c Jugement.
C« — Detenninafion da tribunal d'adjuger
une somme en bloc.
D* — Examen des elements pour fixer une
somme en bloc.
E, — Conclusion et adjudication dt^finitive
d^une somme en bloc.
28 ARIJITRATIOX AT GENEVA.
IV. That it will be convenient to take the three heads of complaiut separat^jly, and
in the order hereinbefore stated.
V. That there is nothing in the Vllth article of the treaty which prevents the
adoption of this mode of proceeding, the only object and eftect of that article being
to insure the separate consideration of the facts relating to each vessel, and a separate
and distinct judgment of the tribunal on the complaints specilically referable to each
in particular.
VI. That the consideration of the first-mentioned head of complaint, reference being
had to the Vlth article of the treaty, and the rules therein laid down, necessarily
involves three ciuestions of law: the first, what effect is to be given to the term "due
diligence," with reference to the difiereut allegations of the want thereof put forward
by the United States Government; the second, whether the general iiriuciples of
international law, referred to in such Vlth article, have relatively to the rights and
duties of nentrals any and what efieet in determining what constitutes due diligence
or the w^ant of it, or in extending or limiting the liability of a neutral st^ate with
reference to this head of complaint ; the third, whether a government acting in goful
faith, and honestly intending to fulfill the obligations of neutrality, is to bo held liable
by reason of mistake, error in judgment, accidental delay, or even negligence on the
part of a subordinate officer,
VII. That it will be convenient, and indeed necessary, to commence our proceedings
with the consideration of these questions of law.
VIII. That, looking to th© difficulty of these questions, and the conflict of opinion
■which hjw arisen amon^ distinguished jurists on the present contest, as well as to
their vast importance in the decision of the tribunal on the matters in dispute,
it is the duty, as it must be presumed to be the wish of the arbitrators, in the interest
of justice, to obtain all the assistance in their power to enable them to arrive at a jnst
and correct conclusion. That they ought, therefore, to cjill for the Jis.si8tance of
the eminent counsel who are in attendance on the tribunal to assist them w^ith their
reasoning and learning, so that arguments scattered over a mass of documents may be
presented in a concentrateil and appreciable form, and the tribunal may thus have the
advantage of all the light which can be thrown on so intricate and difficult a matter,
and that its proceedings may hereafter jfi;)pear to the world to have been characterized
by the patience, the deliberation, and anxious desire for information on all the points
involved in its decision, without which it is impossible that justice can be duly or
satisfiictorilv done.
After discussion, the tribunal deeiiled to proceed witli the case of the
Florida at the next meeting, according to the programme of Mr. Stiein-
pfli.
The tribunal then adjourned until Wednesday, the 17th instant, at 1
o'clock in the afternoon.
FREDERICK SCLOPIS.
J. C. BANCROFT DAV-IS.
TENTERDEN.
ALEX. FAVROT, Secretary.
TROTOCOL XI.
Record of the proceedings of tJw tribunal of arbitration at the eleventh
conference, held at Oetieva, in Switzerland, on the \lthof July, 1872.
The conference was held pursuant to adjournment. All the arbi-
trators and the agents of the two governments were present.
The protocol of the last conference was read and approved, and was
signed by the president and secretary of the tribunal, and the agents
of the two governments.
On the proposal of Sir Alexander Cockbnrn it was decided that the
written opinions or statements read by the arbitrators to the tribunal
should be printed, and distributed to the arbitrators and to the agents
and counsel of the two governments.
PROTOCOLS OF THE CONFERENCES. 29
The tribunal tbeii proceeded with the consideration of the ^ ^, ^
1? ^1 -r«i • J * ^*"' Florida.
case of the Florida.
The conference vras adjonrued until Fridaj, the 10th instant, at 1
oVIock in the afternoon.
FKEDERICK SCLOPIS.
J. C. BANCROFT DAVIS.
TENTERDEN.
ALEX. FAVROT, ^Secret^xry.
PROTOCOL XII.
Record of the proceedings of the trlhtinal of arbitration at the twelfth con-
ference, held at Geneva, in Siritzerhnd, on the 19th of July, 1872.
The conference was held pursuant to adjournment. All the arbi-
trators and the agents of the two governments were present.
The protocol of the last conference was read and approved, and was
signed by the president and secretary of the tribunal and the agents
of the two governments.
The tribunal continued with the consideration of the case *
of the Florida.
The tribunal decided that the meetings should, for the present, be
held on Mondays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays, Thursdays, and Fridays.
The conference then adjourned until Monday, the 22d instant, at
half past 12 o'clock.
FREDERICK SCLOPIS.
J. C. BANCROFT DAVIS.
TENTERDEN.
ALEX. FAVROT, Secretary.
PROTOCOL XIII.
lUvordofthe proceedings of the tribunal of arbitration at the thirteenth
conference, held at Geneva, in Switzerland, on the 22d of July, 1872.
The conference was held pursuant to adjournment. All the arbitra-
tors and the agents of the two governments were present.
The proctocol of the last conference was read and approved, and
was signed by the president and secretary of the tribunal, and the
agents of the two governments.
The tribunal continued with the consideration of the case of the
Florida.
Sir Alexander Cockburn, as one of the arbitrators, proposed to the
tribunal under the fifth article of the treaty of Washington, to call for
the avssistauce of counsel upon the effect of the term of 5;^ a. rocn rn>
" due diligence,- and as to the principles of international law Iwi ^"^7; aJ";-
applicable to the case under the terms of that article. ''*"••
After deliberation, a majority of the tribunal decided that it does not
at present require the assistance of the agents and counsel upon the
point proposed by Sir Alexander Cockburn ; but that it reserves the
right of requiring that assistance on any point, if necessary, according
to the fifth article of the treaty.
30 ARBITRATION AT GENEVA.
The tribunal also decided to consider at the next conference the case
of the Alabama, and the questions of ^^ due diligence," and the effect
of a commission in connection with that vessel.
The conference was adjourned until Thursday, the 25tli instant, at
half past 12 o'clock.
FREDERICK SCLOPIS.
J. (J. BANCROFT DAVIS.
TENTERDEN.
ALEX. FAVROT, Secretary.
PROTOCOL XIV.
Record of the proceedings of the tribunal of arbitration at the fourteenth
conference^ held at Geneva^ in Switzerlandj on the 2i}th of July^ 1872.
The conference was held pursuant to adjournment. All the arbitra-
Arrlment ordered toi's and thc agcnts of thc two governments were present,
Kff«t**o' ''ccumr. The protocol of the last conference was read and ap-
»K>».od.uppiR.o( proved, and was signed by the president and secretary of
TheAi.b.ji«L ^iig tribunal and the agents of the two governments.
On the proposal of Baron d-Itajubii, as one of the arbitrators, the tri-
bunal decided to require a written or printed statement or argument
from the counsel of Great Britain upon the following questions of law :
1. The question of due diligence, generally considered;
2. The special question, as to the effect of the commissions of confed-
erate shii)s of war entering British ports ;
3. The special question, as to supi)lies of coal in British ports to con-
federate ships ;
With the right to the other party to repl}" either orally or in writing,
as the case may be.
Baron d'ltajuba proposed that when a proposition should be made to
the tribunal, the discussion of that proposition should always be put off
to the next following conference ; which was agreed to.
The tribunal then proceeded with the case of the Alabama.
The tribunal also decided to consider at the next conference the cases
of the Sumter, Nashville, and Chickamauga, successively.
The conference was then adjourned until Monday, the 29th instant, at
half past 12 o'clock.
FREDERICK SCLOPIS.
J. C. BANCROFT DAVIS.
TENTERDEN.
ALEX. FAVROT, Secretary.
PROTOCOL XV.
Recou'd of the proceedings of the tribunal of arbitration at tJie fifteenth
conference^ held at Geneva^ in Switzerland^ on the 29tA of July^ 1872.
The conference was held pursuant to adjournment. All the arbitra-
Brit»b arnment tors aud tho agcuts of the two governments were present.
NihiiiSjiJchS- The protocol of the last conference was read and ap-
wMuta. • proved, and was signed by the president and secretary of
the tribunal and the agents of the two governments.
PROTOCOLS OF THE CONFERENCES. 31
Lord Tenderden, agent of Her Britannic Majesty, announced that he
had already delivered to the secretary a written statement or argument
from the counsel of Her Britannic Majesty upon the three questions of
law required by the tribunal at the preceding conference.
The tribunal then proceeded with the cases of the vessels the Sumter,
the Nashville, and the Ghickamauga, as decided at the last meeting.
The tribunal also decided to consider at the next conference the cases
of the Olustee or Tallahassee, the Retribution, and the Tuscaloosa.
The conference was then adjourned until Tuesday, the 30th instant,
at half past 12 o'clock.
FREDERICK SCLOPIS.
J. C. BANCROFT DAVIS.
TENTERDEN.
ALEX. FAVROT, Seoreiary.
PROTOCOL XVI.
Record of the proceedings of the tribunal of arhltraiion at tlie sixteenth con-
ference j held at Oeneva^ in Switzerland^ on the 30f A of July, 1872.
The conference was held pursuant to adjournment. All the arbitrators
and the agents of the two governments were present. TaitahM»« an^
The protocol of the last conference was read and approved, '^'"''"i^*"^
and wa8 signed by the president and secretary of the tribunal and the
agents of the two governments.
The tribunal then proceeded with the cases of the vessels the Tusca-
loosa, the Tallahassee, and the Retribution.
The tribunal also decided to devote the next conference to receiving
the written or oral statement or argument of the counsel of the United
States, in reply to the argument presented at the last conference by the
counsel of Her Britannic Majesty.
The conference was then adjourned until Monday, the 5th of August,
at half past 12 o'clock.
FREDERICK SCLOPIS.
J. C. BANCROITT DAVIS.
TENTERDEN.
ALEX. FAVROT, Secretary.
PROTOCOL XVIL
Reeord of the proceedings of the tribunal of arbitration at the seventeenth
oonfe\'ence, held at Geneva^ in Switzerland, on the 5th of August, 1872.
The conference was held pursuant to adjournment. All the arbitrators
and the agents of the two governments were present. onu arf,.m«at oi
The protocol of the last conference was read and approved, **' *^''""'-
and was signed by the president and secretary of the tribunal and the
agents of the two governments.
The tribunal proceeded with the hearing of the oral argument by Mr.
Evarts, counsel of the United States, in reply to the argument presented
32 ARBITRATION AT GENEVA.
by Sir Eoundell Palmer, counsel of Her Britannic Majesty, at the fif-
teenth conference.
The tribunal then adjourned until Tuesday, the 6th instant, at half
past 12 o'clock.
FREDERICK SCLOPIS.
J. G. BANCROFT DAVIS.
TENTERDEN.
ALEX. FAVROT, Secretary.
PROTOCOL XVIII.
Record of the proceedings of the tribunal of arbitration at the eighteenth
conference, held at Geneva^ in Sicltzerlandj on the 6th of August^ 1872.
The conference was held pursuant to adjournment. All the arbitrators
and the agents of the two governments were present.
T.^TZlTo'JJlai The protocol of the last conference was read and approved,
cu.h.,* ^^^^ ^^^ signed by the president and secretary of the tribu-
nal and the agents of the two governments.
Mr. Evarts concluded the oral argument on the part of the counsel of
the United States in reply to the argument on the part of the counsel
of Her Britannic Majesty.
Mr. Cushing delivered to the tribunal a written argument on the part
of the counsel of the United States in reply to a portion of the argu-
ment presented by the counsel of Her Britannic Majesty.
The tribunal then adjourned until Thursday, the 8th instant, at half
past 12 o'clock.
FREDERICK SCLOPIS.
J. C. BANCROFT DAVIS.
TENTERDEN.
ALEX. FAVROT, Secretary.
PROTOCOL XIX.
Record of the proceedings of the tribunal of arbitration at the nineteenth
conference, held at Geneva, in Stcitzerland, on the Sth of Augtist, 1872.
The conference was held pursuant to adjournment. All the arbitrators
R.tr,bution, anta- ^ud thc agcuts of thc two governments were present.
n -nt oi Mr. Waiie rpjjg j^^otocol of thc last confcrcnce was read and approved,
and was signed by the president and secretary of the tribunal and the
agents of the two governments.
The tribunal concluded the examination of the case of the Retribution.
Mr. Waite delivered to the tribunal a written argument on the part
of the counsel of the United States, in reply to a portion of the argu-
ment presented by the counsel of Her Britannic Majesty.
The tribunal then adjourned until Wednesday, the 14th instant, at
half past 12 o'clock.
FREDERICK SCLOPIS.
J. C. BANCROFT DAVIS.
TENTERDEN.
ALEX. FAVROT, Secretary.
PEOTOCOLS OF THE CONFERENCES. 33
PROTOCOL XX.
Secard of the proceedings of the tribunal of arbitration at the twentieth
conference^ held at Geneva^ in Switzerland^ on the IWi of August^ 1872.
The conference was held parsnant to adjournment. All the arbitrators
. ^^ ^ . and the agents of the two governments were present*
x^i^ud T. ^. The protocol of the last conference was read and approved,
^'^' and was signed by the president and secretary of the tri-
bnnal and the agents of the two governments.
Mr. Bancroft Davis, in reply to an inquiry from Count Sclopis on
behalf of tiie tribunal, stated as follows :
The claims for losses growing out of the acts of the Sallie, the Jeff. Davis, the Music,
the Boston, and the Y. H. Joy, are respectfuUy submitted for the determiuation of the
tribunal.
The a^nt of the United States has no instructions regarding them, except what
appears in the list of claims presented on the 15th of December last, and in the revised
list of claims presented on the 15th of April last.
The tribunal directed this statement to be recorded, and passed to the
consideration of the question of ^' due diligence," generally considered.
The conference was adjourned until Thursday, the 15th instant, at
half past 12 o'clock.
FREDERICK SCLOPIS.
J. C. BANCROFT DAVIS.
TENTERDEN.
ALEX. FAVROT, Secretary.
PROTOCOL XXL
Record of the proceedings of the tribunal of arbitration at the twenty-first
conference^ held at Oeneva^ in Switzerland, on the 15th of August, 1872.
The conference was held pursuant to acyournment. All the arbi-
tratrators and the agents of the two governments were cacet.i commi.-
. MODH ; new evidence
present. nbimtted by G. B.
The protocol of the last conference was read and approved, and was
signed by the president and secretary of the tribunal and the agents of
the two governments.
The tribunal proceeded to consider the effects of the commissions of
confederate ships of war entering British ports, and the supplies of
coal in British ports to confederate ships.
Lord Teuterden, as agent of Her Britannic Majesty, submitted the
following statement :
As the tribunal is now approaching the consideration of the case of the Georgia, I
b^ respectfnUy to sabmit ^at in the argument of the United States, with respect to
that vessel, (pages 224, 225») it is (for the first time) suggested that the British govern-
ment ought to nave informed themselves, by inquiry, what ships were being built in
Febmary, 1863, for the Emperor of China ; and certain inferences appear to be drawn
from the (assumed) fact that they omitted to do so.
In consequence of this unforeseen suggestion, documents have become material,
which did not appear to be so, when the appendices to the British case and counter-
case were prepared, and which were, therefore, not included in those appendices. To
elncidate this point, I have now in my possession, and am desirous of delivering to the
arbitrators, copies of four letters :
No. 1. From Mr. Hammond to Mr. Lay, the a^ent of the Emperor of China, dated
28th February, 1863, (in which the inquiry, which the United States suggest as proper
to have been made, was actually made by Earl Bnssell's direction ;)
3b
34 ARBITRATION AT GENEVA,
No. 2. From Mr. Lay to Mr. Hammond, dated 2d March, 1863, (commanicating the
information desired;)
No. 3. From Earl Russell to Mr. Adams, dated 5th March, 1863, (commanicating to
Mr. Adams the information so obtained from Mr. Lay;) andT
No. 4. From Mr. Adams to Earl Russell, dated 11th March, 1863, (acknowledgiog
the receipt of No. 3.)
Mr. Bancroft Davis, as agent of the United States, stated in reply :
I have examined the letters which Lord Tenterden wishes to present. They appear
to contain nothing which we regard as important, in themselves ; but we can find no
authority in the treaty authorizing the tribunal either to call for or to admit new evi-
dence from either party at th is stage of the proceedings. I must leave the tribunal to ac t
upon the application as in its jud&^ment it may see nt.
The tribunal decided to receive the letters from Lord Tenterden , who
thereupon presented them.
The tribunal also decided to consider the case of the Georgia at the
next meeting.
The conference was then adjourned until Friday, the 16th instant, at
12 o'clock.
FEBDERIOK SCLOPIS.
J. C. BANCEOFT DAVIS.
TENTERDEN.
ALEX. FAVfiOT, Secretary.
PROTOCOL XXIL
Record of the proceedings of the tribunal of arbitraiion at the twenty-sec-
ond conference^ heldyit Geneva^ in Switzerland^ on the l^th of August,
1872.
The conference was held pursuant to adjournment. All the arbi-
trators and the agents of the two governments were present.
The protocol of the last conference was read and approved, and was
signed by the president and secretary of the tribunal and the agents of
the two governments.
Ti.«G«ortUL The tribunal considered the case of the Georgia.
The tribunal decided to proceed with the consideration of the case of
the Shenandoah at the next meeting.
The conference was adjourned until Monday, the 19th instant, at half-
past 12 o'clock.
FREDERICK SCLOPIS.
J. C. BANCROFT DAVIS.
TENTERDEN.
ALEX. FAVROT, Secretary.
PROTOCOL XXIIL
Record of the proceedings of the tribunal of arbitration at the twenty-
third conference, held at Oeneva^ in Switzerland^ on the 19th of August,
1872.
The conference was held pursuant to adjournment. All the arbi-
trators and the agents of the two governments were present.
The protocol of the last conference was read and approved, and was
signed by the president and secretary of the tribunal and the agents of
the two governments.
PROTOCOLS OF THE CONFERENCES. 35
The tribunal considered the ease of the Shenandoah. ntiuodoab: n«w
r-i^di*i.* J jt-^ • tables pratooted bjr
Count Sclopis having expressed some doubts concerning tb«M«i.u.
the chief point of this discussion, requested the' tribunal to permit the
counsel to afford further elucidation with regard to that point.
The tribunal decided to hear these explanations at the next con-
ference.
Id compliance with a request of the tribunal, Mr. J. C. Bancroft Davis,
as agent of the United States, and Lord Tenterden, as agent of Her
Britannic Majesty, respectively, presented to the tribunal tables of
figures relating to the losses for which compensation is claimed by the
United States, with explanatory statements and observations.
The conference was adjourned until Wednesday, the 21st instant, at
half-past 12 o'clock.
FREDERICK SCLOPIS.
J. C. BANCROFT DAVIS.
TENTERDEN.
ALEX. FAYBOT, Secretat-y.
PROTOCOL XXIV.
Record of ike proceedings of the tribunal of arbitration at the twentyfourth
conference^ held at Geneva^ in Switzerland^ on the 21st of August^ 1872.
The conference was held pursuant to adjournment. All the arbitral-
tors and the agents of the two governments were pfesent. shen«d«j,: .r*
The protocol of the last conference was read and approved, Xi"oVSfe'3fryo?
and was signed by the president and secretary of the tribu- "«>ri<i«i«toMobae.
nal and the agents of the two governments.
The tribunsd continued the consideration of the case of the Shenan-
doah, by hearing explanations from Sir Rouudeil Palmer and Mr. O.
Cushing.
At the close of his remarks, Mr. G. Cushing requested to be informed
by the tribunal whether the questions outside of that of enlistment^
on which the elucidation called for specially turned, remaiaopen beiore
the tribunal.
After deliberation, a majority of four to one declared the tribunal
sufiiciently enlightened.
Count Sclopis then concluded the statement of his opinions, which he-
had not completed at the meeting of the 19th instant.
Sir Alexander Cockburn, as one of the arbitrators, then proposed to
the tribunal to require further elucidation by counsel upon the follow-
ing question :
The legal effect, if any, of the faot that.the Florida, aflier leaving the Bahamas, did,
before entering on her employment as a vessel of war and taking any vessel of the
United States, go into Mobile, a confederate port, and after » delay of four months,
proceed from thence on her crnise against the shipping of the United States, nnder the
ciremoetances appearing in the evidence.
The tribunal decided to adopt the proposal.
The conference was then adjourned until Friday, the 23d instant, at
halfpast 12 o'clock.
FREDERICK SCLOPIS.
J. C. BANCROFT DAVIS.
TENTERDEN.
ALEX. FAVROT, Secretary.
36 ARBITRATION AT GENEVA.
PROTOCOL XXV.
Record of the proceedings of the tribunal of arbitration at the twenty-fifth
conference, held at Geneva, in Stoitzerland, on the 23d of August, 1872.
The conference was held pursuant to adjournment. AH the arbitra-
Lord Tendenten'. tors aud thc agcuts of the two governments were preaent
blIi*T2*2S' ?y The protocol of the last conference was read and approved,
2i;u«toFion,b; and was signed by the president and secretary of the trib-
•oedr7d.ci.ioM. ' ^nal and the agents of the two governments.
Lord Tenterden, as agent of Her Britannic Majesty^ read the following
statement:
As ngent of Her Britannic Majestv, I have the honor respectfully to represent to the
tribunal that the tables of claims which were pro forma presented to the arbitrators by
the agent of the United States on Monday, 19th instant, but of which I was only far-
nished with copies on the ni^i^ht of the ^Ist instant, contain new and additional claima
of the following description.
1. a. Claims for waees of crews of captured Teasels from time of capture.
(. Claims for loss of personal effects of officers and crews.
There is no evidence as to the number of the crews, nor 'as to the long and varyingpe*
riods for which their wages are calculated, nor as to any such personal effects havui|(
been in fact lost.
In short, these claims are wholly conjectural in amount and unsupported by any
evidence whatsover.
2. Additional claims for shares of vessels not claimed for up to the present time, e.g, :
where an individual claimant has only claimed for four-fifths of the value of a vessel,
an arbitrary claim is now advanced for the first time on the part of the United States
Government for the value of the remaining fifth.
It is not alleged that the part owner who had not previously claimed has now given
any authority tor this clajm to be advanced. . The strong presumption indeed is that
he may have already received the value of his share ih>m English or other foreign
insurance companies, with whom it was insured, and who are not entitled under tne
treaty to advance any claim.
3. Claims previously presented have been increased in amount without any ground
appearing for such increase.
The total amount of these three classes of claims, which are now for the first time
advanced on the part of the United States Government, appears, in round numbers, to
be at least two millions of dollars.
Independently of the fact that these additional claims are unsupported by any evi-
dence, it is my duty respectfully to submit to the tribunal that the additional statement
of any new claims whatever, in this stage of the arbitration, for the purpose of influ-
encing or affecting the Judgment of the tribunal upon any matter within itsauthority,
is contrary to the provisions of the treaty.
The treaty contemplates that the statements of facts and evidence, constituting the
whole case of each party, should be brought before the tribunal within the times and
in the manner specified in Articles 3, 4 and 5, subject only to such further statements
or arguments as under Article 5 the arbitrators may think fit to require or permit for
the elucidation of any point contained in, or arising out of, the documents previously
put in by either party.
I have«Also to submit that the introduction of such additional claims is not author-
ized by the request made by the arbitrators.
This request was that comparative statements of the results in figures of the claims
already made, as appearing in the papers previously presented, according to the views
of the respective parties, snould be prepared, with explanatory observations, and laid
before the tribunal, and it could not have been intended ta afford the opportunity
for bringing forward new, or increasing former, claims.
Under these circumstances, I respectfully request the arbitrators to disallow, as
unauthorized by them, and as contrary t<o the treaty, the tables containing such addi-
tional claims, presented by the agent of the United States, and the memorandum re-
lating to them, without prejudice to his right to present other tables, accompanied by
any explanatory observations, which shall be limited to the particular claims already
set forth in the case and counter-case of the United States, and the appendices thereto*
The tribunal decided to adjourn the consideration of this matter until
the next conference.
Sir Koundell Palmer, as counsel of Her Britannic Majesty, then read
the argument required by the tribunal on Sir Alexander Gockburn's
PROTOCOLS OF THE CONFEEENCES. 37
proposHly npon the question of law mentioned in Prococol XXIY, and
Mr. Evarts, as coansel of the United States, replied to it.
On the proposal of Viscount d'ltajuba, one of the arbitrators, the
tribunal decided to adjourn until the next conference the further dis-
cussion upon tihe Flwida, and to proceed with the definitive vote on
each vessel separately.
The tribunal then decided that it had to consider only such vessels
with regard to which claims were presented in the case and counter-ca^e
of the United States; every other question being consequently under-
stood as dismissed from consideration.
Count Sclopis, as president of the tribunal, having read the Article
Yil of the Treaty of Washington, asked the tribunal whether, as to the
Sumter, Great Britain has, by any act or omission, failed to fulfill any of
the duties set forth in the >lhree rules mentioned in Article VI of the
treaty, or recognized by the principles of International law, not incon-
sistent with such rules.
The tribunal unanimously replied ^^No."
The same question was asked as to the Nashville, and the tribunal
unanimously replied ^^No."
The same question was renewed as to the Retribution.
Mr. Adams answered '< Yes, for all the acts of this vessel."
Mr. StaBmpfiti answered '^ Yes, as to the loss of the £mily Fisher."
Sir Alexander Oockburn, Yiscount d'lttyuba, and Count Sclopis an-
swered " No."
The same question was asked as to the Georgia, and the tribunal
unanimously answered ^' No."
The same question was repeated as to the Tallahassee and Chicka-
manga, separately, and the tribunal unanimously answered <<No"for
each of these Vessels.
The same question having been repeated as to the Alabama, the tri-
bunal unanimously answered '^ Yes."
The same question was renewed as to the Shenahdoah, and Mr. Adams,
Mr. Stsempfli, and Count Sclopis answered ** Yes ; but only for the acts
committed by this vessel after her departure from Melbourne on the
18th of February, 1865." Viscount d'ltajuba and Sir Alexander Cock-
bum answered ^' No."
The definitive vote on the Florida was adjourned until the next meet-
ing.
The conference was then adjourned until Monday, the 26th instant,
at half past 12 o^clock.
FREDERICK SCLOPIS.
J. C. BANCROFT DAVIS.
TENTERDEN.
ALEX. FAVROT, Secretary.
PROTOCOL XXVI.
Beeord of the proceedings of the tribunal of arbitration at the twenty-sixth
conference held at Geneva in Switzerland^ on 2^th of Augusty 1872.
The conference was held pursuant to a4Joumment. All the arbitra-
tors and the agents of the two governments were present. Jiiii J?SbiJ.
The protocol of the last conference was rea^ and approved, |7^yf;^s;^
and was signed by the president and secretary of the tribu- \^J^^^^
nal and the agents of the two governments. I^B^k..*
38 ARBITRATION AT GENEVA.
Lord Tenterden, as agent of Her Britannic Majesty, delivered to the
tribunal and the agent of the United States tables of figures relating
to the claims contained in the tables presented on the part of the
United States on the 19th instant.
The tribunal concluded the discussion of the question concerning the
entrance of the Florida into Mobile, and her stay at that port, and pro-
ceeded to the definitive vote on this vessel.
Count Sclopis, as president of the tribunal, having asked, under the
VII article of the treaty of Washington, whether, as to the Florida,
Great Britain had, by any act or omission, failed to fulfil any of the da-
ties set forth in the rules mentioned in Article YI of the treaty, or re-
cognized by the principles of international law not inconsistent with
such rules, Mr. Adams, Viscount d'ltsyuba, M. StaBmpfli, and Count
Sclopis answered "Yes, " and Sir Alexander Cockbum answered "No."
As a question of principle, the tribunal then unanimously declared
that Great Britain should be considered as responsible for the tenders
in the same degree as for the vessels to which they were attached.
The same question as had been put with regard to the Florida, was
ncTxt asked by Count Sclopis as to the Tuscaloosa, a tender to the Ala-
bama, and the tribunal unanimously answered " Yes. "
The same question was asked separately as to the Clarence, the Ta-
cony, and the Archer, as tenders to the Florida, and Mr. Adams, Mr.
Stsempfli, Viscount d'ltajuba, and Count Sclopis answered " Yes, ^ for
each of these vessels, and Sir Alexander Cockbum answered' " N^o" for
each of these vessels.
The tribunal then proceeded to the consideration of the representar
tion made by the agent of Her Britannic Majesty, at the last confer-
ence.
Mr. J. C. Bancroft Davis, as agent of the United States, read the fol-
lowing statement in reply:
L'agent de sa Malestd J>Titanniqne a pr^sent^ au tribunal nn memorandam destine
k critiquer le r^unie des indemnity demand^s par led fitats-Unis, et dans leqaei le
tribunal est pri4 de remettre ce r^um^ k I'agent des ^tats-Unis comme non avena.
L'agent des £tats-Unis soutient respeotneusement que son r6sum6 est parfaitement
en ih^le et en tout oonforme aux droits des £tats-Unis anssi bien qu'i^ la demande par-
ticuli^re du tribunal. *^
1. Les objections de Tag^nt de sa Migest6 britannique portent sur les points snivants:
a) Les gages des ^uipages des navires capturtSs par les vaisseaux arm^ des confiS-
d^r^s ;
b) Les pertes des personnes de ces Equipages, tant offloiers que matelots ;
c) Des parties indivis^es d'un navire qui ne paraissent pas express^ment dans les
a bleaux originaux ;
d) Augmentation pr^tendue du montant total des reclamations.
2. L'agent de sa Mf\jeste britannique objecte aussi :
a) En mati^re de forme ;
h) En mati^re de competence.
Nous repondrons seriatim h toutes ces objections :
L Quant h la forme, il est Evident que les arbitres, pour faciliter leurs investigations,
out desire avoir sons les yeux un abr^g^ comparatif de ce que les £tats-Unis r^clament
ct de la critique de ces reclamations par TAngletftre, critique portant sur les chiffres
auBsl bien que sur les chefs des reclamations. Ces resumes faits par les deux parties
ue lieut d'aucune mani^re les arbitres: ce sont tout simplement des renseignements
propres ii guider le tribunal h travers la masse de chiffres et de details renfermes dans
les memoires et les pi^cesjustificatives des deux gonvernements.
L'agent de sa M^jeste britannique pretend que les £tats-Unip doivent calqner leur
resume sur le modMe du resume de I'Angleterre, non-seulement quant k la forme, mais
aussi quant au fond. C'est-^^ire que, s'il plait h TAngleterre d^omettre dans son re-
sume quelque chefde reclamations, PAmerique doit aussi Tomettre. Ceserait une
etrange table synoptique.
La raison requiertTexplication des differences qui existent entreles chiffres de chaque
chef d6 reclamations. Mais elle requiert aussi Fexplioation des differences qui existent
entre les chefs mdmes des reclamations. Sans cela, I'Angleterre n'aurait qu'a snpprimer
PROTOCOLS OF THE CONFERENCES. 39
dans 80D r^8am6 le ohef des assiiraDces, oa celni des frets, oa celai d'an navire quelcon-
2ue, poor soastraire ce chef & la coouaistiance des arbitres. Ce ne serait pas le moyeu
e rensei^er le tribunal, mais pla6t celai de le tromper. Une telle id6e a Tair d'ane
plaisantene, et nollement d'nne objection s^rieose an tableau des fitats-Unis.
Le tribunal ezaminera les r^um^ des deux gouvernements. A la lumi^re de ces
»Ssnm^ le tribunal examinera tous les documents relatifs compris dans les mdmoires
et contre-m^moires des deux gouvernements. C'est le droit et c'est le devoir de chaque
j^ouvemement de soumettre au tribunal les preuves respectives sans retranchement
d'an c6t6 et sans suppression de Fautre. Alors le tribunal Jugera.
II. Quant ^ la competence :
a) La tnii6 oomprend tontes lea rSolamatiotu dea^tats-Unis qui aont dAign^ iousle
nom ^n^rique de r4clanuUioM de V Alabama.
5) Xe tribunal, par son opinion prdliminaire, a limits la g^n^ralit^ de ces mots, en
^cartant des r^lamations certaines pertes nationales all^gu^s par les £tats-Unis.
Hais, k la suite de cette opinion, le tribunal reste saisi de la question de toutes les
r^lamations faites par les Etats-Unis dans Fint^r^t des individus l^s^s, et comprises
sous le nom g^n^rique de r^lamations de 1' Alabama.
Les pertes des offlciers, et en g^n^ral des dqnipages des navires capture, ne sont pas
znoins valables que oelles des armateurs et des assureurs. Le doute est impossible h
cet ^i^nrd.
c) Des r^amations pour les pertes personuelles des Equipages des navires captures
sont formul^es de la mani^re la plus explicite dans le m^moire des Stats^Unis, comme
suit:
" B^lamations pour dommages ou mauyais traitements inflig^ aux personnes, et
qui ont 6t6 le r^ultat de la destruction des vaisseaux appartenant, aux deux classes
pr6G^deiite8.
• • • * • • •
'' n est impossible h present pour les £tats-Unis de soumettre au tri1)unal un ^tat
d^tailM des dommages ou mauvais traitements personnels qui sont r6sult6s de la de-
struction de chaque dasse de vaisseaux. Les offlciers et P^uipage de chaque vaisseau
avaient droit k la protection du drapeau am6ricain ; leurs r&lamatious doivent dtre
incluses dans la somme totale que le tribunal pent alloner. D'apr^ les elements d'ap-
pr6ciation qui leur sont foumis, il ne sera pas difficile aux arbitres de connaltre les
noma et le tonnage des b&timeqits d^truits, de determiner le nombre de ces hardis ma-
rins sans ressources qui ont 4t6 priv^s ainsi de leurs moyens de subsistence et de fixer
la somme totale qui de ce chef devraitdtre plac^e dans les mains des £tats-Unis. EUe
ne pent pas dtre inf^rieure h des centaines de mille dollars et elle pent s'^lever k des
millions. (Traduction fran^aise, pp. 377, 37B.)
d) Nous prions les arbitres de lire ces extraits attentivement. Us verront que les
fitats-Unis ont presents les reclamations de cette classe de la mani^re la plus claire et
la plus positive, commeunchef capital des iudemnit6sdemand6es ^laGrande-Bretague.
Nous i^oatons que ce sout des reclamations r^elles et m6rit6ee.
LUncertitude du chiffre ne unit pas h sa reclamation.
Nous anrons plus tard quelque onose h dire k ce snjet.
e) Les pertes d'effets, soit d'offlciers, soit de matelots, sont expressement recitees dans
plnsienrs cas. Dans les autres, ces pertes sont estim^es d'apr^ le chiffre des pertes
actuellement exprimees.
Quant aux gages et au chiffre des equipages, nous avons essaye de rassembler tous
les renseignements possibles, et nos estimations sont fondees sar les faits developpes
dans les pieces Justificatives.
Nous distinguons entre les gages des equipages des baleiniers et ceux des navires
marchands proprement dits.
Poor les deux classes de navires les gages ont ete perdus, ou par les armateurs qui
les avaient payes, ou poar les equipages qui ne les avaient pas re^us.
Pour les baleiniers, la perte 6tait plus serieuse, parce que dans la plupart des cas le
montant des gages se fixait, en tout ou en partie, selon les beaefices, et les families des
matelots recevaient de Tarmatear nue partie notable de ces gages pendant le temps du
voyage.
Dans ces cas, les matelots des baleiniers avaient ete ^ictimes des frais des six ou
neaf premiers mois d'un voyage, en attendant les benefices qui devraient etre re^us
dsos les trois mois k venir.
De deux choses Tune ; pour indemniser ces gens, il fant leur allouer, ou des benefices
en perspective, ou des gages se rapportaut k ces beuefiees.
Pour les navires marchands, il pent se faire que la question des gages des matelots
soit compliquee de la question des frets. En supposant que les indemuites demaudees
BOOS le cnef de fret soient, comme nous le croyons, les pertes actuelles des armateurs
dans cette relation, 11 s'eusnit que nous avons droit h etre indemnises pour les gages.
Pour la plupart des navires, les £tats-Unis reclameut sous le nom de gages la perte
da temps des matelots, aussi bien quo les frais de leur transport du lien de capture aux
lienx respectifs de leur residence habituolle ; et sous ce chef nous allonons des gages
40 ARBITRATION AT GEKEVA.
durant six mois ou dorant neaf mois, selon que la oaptare a 6t6 fiute dans lea eaax de
TAtlantique oa bien dans celles da Paoifiqae.
£n effety noos donnons des gages doables, pendant trois mois poor le premier cas et
pendant quatre mois et demi ponr le second cas. Qaoiqne ceoi ne soit qu'ane eBtima*
tiODy le r^nltat est au-dessons de la v^rit^ plat6t qa'auHdessas.
Noas avons estim^ le chiffre de I'^uipage de chaqne narire confbrm^ment aax
donu^es qn'on troave dans nos pi^es jnstificatives, en distinction da chiffre des balei-
niers, qnindcessitent un plas g^and nombre d'hommes qae les navires marohands.
III. Lies £tats-Unis r^lament pour toates les parties indivis^es d'an nayire, soit que
le propri^taire d'ane partie mineure qnelconque paraisse on non^parce que les £tats-
linis aaront h r^pondre ^ tons les propria taires dans le cas oil le teibanal aocorderait
en bloc nne somme anx iStats-Unis. Sans cela, il y aarait icuostioe.^Yidente. L'objet
du traits est d'indemniser les iStats-Unis poar toates les pertes subiee par leurs citoyensy
et non d'imposer nne partie de oette indemnification aax £tats-Ums eox-m^mes.
IV. L'agent de sa Miyest^ britanniqne objecte qae nous avons augments le montant
des r^lamations en ijoatant les ohifires appartenant anx trois ohe& soiyants :
Gages (939,597
Effets 441,050
Int^r6ts indivis^ 42,273
1,422,920
II s'agit de moins d'nn million et demi, et non des deax millions all^ga^ dans le
memorandum de Pagent de sa M^jest^ britanniqne.
II est vrai de dire qu'il y a de plus nne addition k la valenr de certains nay ires. Ceat
nne m^prise de Texpert employ^ dans les calculs relatifs k ces nayires. Cette errenr est
expliqn^e et corrigee dans nne note plac^e ii la snite de ce memorandnm.
Mais, en mdme temps, nons avons mis de c6t^ les r6clamations fondles sor dee b^n^
fices en perspective, qui est le donble des additions &ites.
y. Enfin, et ponr r&umer led^bat :
L'Angleterre a compoe6 un tableaa, non des faits actaels, mais tout d'estimations,
d'appr&iations et de moyennes arbitraires et suppos^es.
Notre tableau est compost de faits actnels et prouv^s, poar la pinpart, aveo on petit
nombre d'appr^iations tr^-simples, et celles-oi fondles sur des preaves et des analogies
^videntes et appuy6es par les documents.
Nons avoils pleinement le droit de nous plaindre du tableau tout entier pr^senttf au
nom de TAngleterre : elle n'a k critiauer que quelques ohiffres seoondaires da mdme ordre
appartenant an memorandnm des Etats-Unis.
Ij'ageut de sa Mf^est6 paralt supposer que les £tats-Unis ont eu Tintention, dans
tout ceci, de preparer notre estim^ de mani^re k exercer une influence flflUsheuse sur la
eouscience des arbitres. Est-ce le tribunal qu'on sonp^onneT Est-ce Tagent des £tat8>
Unis f On pourrait s'y m^prendre. On pourrait mdme imputer de tels motifs k Tagent
de sa Majesty. Mais ce ne serait digne ni de lui, ni de nons, en vue des relations ooiir-
toises des agents et des conseils des deux gouvemements.
Mais ilk quoi bon cette critique de part oa d'antre f
Si les arbitres allouent une soiume en bloc, cette somme sera n6cessairement nne ap>
pr^ciation en partie, sans quoi le rteultat des travaux des arbitres ne serait pas une in-
demnification r^Ue des fitats-Unis.
SMI y a quelques d^fants secondaires dans les preuves des fitats-Unis, il y a an manque
preaque total de prenves d^finies de la part de la Grande-Bretagne.
Mais si le tribunal renvoie ces r^lamations ilk des assesseurs, i'Angleterre sera tenne
par les stipulations du traits de payer anx £tats-Unis la somme a^jug^ par les asses-
seurs, sans restriction, ni de preuves affirmatives, ni de preuves negatives. Alors, lea
matelots qui n'ont pas pr^ent^ lenrs r^lamations, et mdme les armateurs, assureurs on
i^ntres, auront le droit de r^lamer devant les assesseurs. Tel est le sens Evident da
traits.
En attendant, tout ce qui se fait, soit de la part de I'Am^rique, soit de la part de
TAngleterre, tend k essayer d'^clairer, par les moyens qui sent 4 notre disposition, le
jugement du tribunal.
Enfin, nous proteetons contre certaines appreciations dn traits de Washington, qui aont
ou exprim^es ou impliqu^es dans le m^moire de Tagent de la Grande-Bretagpie, sans
nous arrdter pour les discuter ioi.
NOTE.
A. — Les reclamations pour les gages des baleiniers et des prehears des na-
vires d^trnits ou detenus par FAlabama,' par le Florida, ou par le Shenan-
doah apr^ sa sortie de Melbourne, (la correction etant faite des errenrs
uot6es dans le memorandum qui accompagne nos tableaux,) estim^es
d'aprte les preuves soumises, s'^l^vent 4 (588,247 50
PROTOCOLS OF THE CONFERENCES. 41
Ce montant doit Atre soustniit de la somme totale dans le sommaire
annexe, si le tribunal accorde les reclamations des baleiniers poar la
pteho perspective et ponr rinterruption da voyage.
!• — Les i^lamations poor les gages des officiers et des hommes des navires
xDarchands ainsi d^tmits on detenus, estim^es d'apr^ les preuves sou-
mises, s'^l^vent ^ $408,070 00
QiMlqnes-ansdes navires d^tmits on detenus ^talent snr lest. En tons
pareils, nons insistons snr ce que le tribunal noas accorde le total des »
r^clam^ PlnsiearSy on xndme la plnpart, des navires ^talent
diarg^ de fret. Dans tons les cas oil le tribunal est con vaincn qne le fret
n^olam^ est fret par, il doit aooorder les reclamations poar gages ; mais
dans tous les cas at le tribunal est convaincn que la reclamation ponr
itet est poor firet brat, il doit refaser d'accorder les reclamations ponr
ga^;e8. Ceci est expose d'nne mani^re tr^s-precise dans le memorandnm
qu aooompagne nos tableaux.
C« — ^Les estimations des reclamations pour les effets personnels des officiers
et des hommes des navires ainsi detruits on detenus s'ei^vent di 421, 000 00
Lee fitats-Unis insistent snr ce qu'il leur soit accorde la somme totale
de ces reclamations.
]^« — ^Lee tableaux presentee par Tagent des fitats-Unis oomprenaient tous
les navires detruits par le Shenandoah. Depuis que ces tableaux ont
ete termines le tribunal a decide que la Grande-Bretagne n'est pas re-
sponsable des actes dn Shenandoah avant sa sortie de Melbourne. Le
montant des reclamations k deduire par suite de cette decision s'ei^ve ^ . . 453, 290 49
S« — ^n y a nne errenr palpable de la part du comptable dans le tableau
intitaie " Shenandoah, supplement, classe A.'' La valeur estimee de huit
navires detenus (c'est-li-dire, $80,000 chacun) fut retenue par le comptable
par megarde, et Jointe aux ohiffires de la colon ne des totaux de pertes.
Dans la discussion detaiUee devant le tribunal, on se serait aper^u tout
de suite de cette errenr, qui etait demeuree inaper^ue dans la hftte des
preparatift pour rediger les tableaux. On fournit ci-inclus un tableau
nonveau sous le m6me titre. Le montant de cette errenr, qui se trouve
corrigee ici, est de 640,000 00
Vm — L'expoee revise ci-joint : totaux des reclamations comparees, exhibe
oes oorrections : o'est-^-dire, qne les montants D et E, qui s'eiWent &
$1,093,290.49, sont dednits.
Cest an tribunal k decider si une partie quelconque des montants A et B
doit Atre dednite.
TOTAUX DES RECLAMATIONS COMPARfiES.
HonUnto r6olam6s Montanta aooord68
dans les tableaux dans le rapport
am^rioaina. i^onte k rarga-
ment britaimi*
qne.
Alabama Classe A $1,314,286 99 $460,893 00
Classe B 1,396,430 83 618,538 00
Classe C 3,309,876 10 2,004,376 00
• Classe D 413,288 33 136,021 00
ChissesE et F 123,807 78 47,850 00
6,557,690 03 3.267,678 00
Florida, 7 oompris le Claience Classe A 228,941 92 108,569 00
etleTacony. Classe B 1 539, 179 10 644,709 00
*Le comptable, qui a fait I'arrangement des navires dans nos tableaux, a place dans
1a elaase C deux navires qui auraient dtl etre dans la classe B, savoir :
L^Oneida $471,849 12
La Windward 22,598 00
494,447 12
Cette errear corrigee, la somme totale de la classe B (sons le nom du Florida)
serait de $1,033,626.&, et de la classe C, $2,844,962.90. Comme les sommes totales
des Wkslamations sons le nom dn Florida ne seraient aocunement changees par la cor-
rection de cette errenr, purement formelle, j'ai pense qu'il ne valait pas la peine de
changer les tableaux detailies.
42 AEBITBATION AT GENEVA.
TOTAUX DES RfiCLAMATIOKS GOMPARfiES-Coptinaes.
Hontanta rficlamte MontaatB aocordte
dans les tableaux dans le rapixyrt
am^cains. ^Joat6 L I'arga-
/ rnent biitaani-
qne.
Florida, 7 compris le Claraenoe Classe C $3, 339, 410 02 $1, 776, 375 00
et le Taoony— Continue. Claeee D 138, 929 17 44, 570 00
ClaasesEetF 278,618 62 61,350 00
Classe G 91,225 10
4, 616, 303 93 2, 635, 573 00
Shenandoah : Classe A et BnppMment ^ 3, 263, 149 55 1, 171, 464 00
Recapitulation: Alabama 6,557,690 03 3,267,678 00
Florida 4,616,303 93 2,635,573 00
Shenandoah 3,263,149 55 1,171,464 00
14, 437, 143 51 7, 074, 715 00
R^clamationB actnellee dee £tat6-Uni6 ponr lea d^
pensee cans^es ik lear marine par suite des actes
du Florida, de r Ah&bama et du Shenandoah. 6, 735, 062 49 940, 460 24
21, 172, 206 00 8, 015, 175 24
R^lamations provenant de rintermption dea voyages
et des pertes but benefices en perspeotiye 4, 099, 302 50
80MMAIRB.
Totanx des reclamations, (y oompris les reclamations provenant de
rinteiTuption des voyages et des pertes sur benefices en perspec-
tive) $25,281,508 50
Si les susdites reclamations sont comprises, il faut dednire, {vide A).. 588, 247 50
24,693,261 00
Ou
Totanx des reclamations, (non com^ris les dites reclamations) $21, 272, 206 20
Dans le oas oil une pareille elimination serait faite, il faudrait i^outer
25% sur la valeur des navires et des equipements, (vide le memoran-
dum qui accompagne les tableaux) 400,127 91
21,672,334 11
En tons cas il faut i^outer I'interet de 7% par an jusqu'au Jour du paiement indiqne
par les termes du traite.
After deliberatioD, the tribunal gave its decision as follows :
The tribunal does not see fit to order the withdrawal of the tables presented on the
part of the United States as requested by Lord Teuterden ; but it declares that it con-
siders these documents only as simple elucidations, such as were required by one of
the arbitrators. Viscount d'lt^jubli, to which the tribunal will give such attention as
is right.
The tribunal determined to devote the next conference to the consid-
eration of the questions concerning the claims for <^ expenditure incurred
in pursuit of the cruisers, prospective profits, freights, and interest,'' and
decided to deliberate with closed doors.
Sir Alexander Oockburn, as one of the arbitrators, declared that he
objected to this latter decision.
The conference was then adjourned until Thursday, the 29th instant^
at half past 12 o'clock.
FBEDERIOK SCLOPIS.
J. C. BANCROFT DAVIS.
TENTERDEN.
ALEX. FAVBOT, Secretary.
PK0T0C0L8 OF THE CONFERENCES 43
PROTOCOL xxvn.
Record of the proceedings of the tribunal of arbitration at the twenty-seventh
conference lield at Geneva^ in Switzerland^ on the 29t& of August j 1872.
The conferrace was held with closed doors, pursuant to adjournment.
All the arbitrators were present. sondry ciM«e« of
The protocol of the last conference was read; the ap- «»^»-'^«^<*-
proval and signing of the same was deferred until the next meeting.
The tribunal proceeded to consider the questions concerning the
claims for ^' expenditure incurred in pursuit of the cruisers, prospective
profits, and freights.''
As to the claims for expenditure incurred in pursuit of the cruisers,
a majority of the tribunal decided to reject them as comprised in the
costs of the war; Mr. Staempfii and Mr. Adams declared them to be ad-
missible, as belonging to the direct losses, reserving to appreciate their
amount according to the bases laid down in the toble at page 120 of
the seventh volume of the appendix to the case of the United States.
As to the claims for prospective profits the tribunal unanimously
decided to reject them, reserving, however, the questions as to the
wages for the whalers and the interest for the value of the vessels and .
their outfit.
As to the claims for freights, the tribunal unanimously decided not to
admit of the gross freight, but only the net freight.
The tribunal also decided to consider at the next conference the ques-
tions concerning the valuation of the destroyed vessels and the claims
for inter^t. '
Lastly the tribunal decided to adjourn this, conference until Friday,
the 30th instant, at 12 o'clock, and to deliberate again with closed doors.
FEEDERICK SCLOPIS.
ALEX. FAVROT, Secretary .
PROTOCOL XXVIIL
Record of the proceedings of the tribunal of arbitration at the twenty-eighth
conference held at Geneva^ in Switzerland^ on the dOth of August^ 1872.
The conference was held with closed doors^ pursuant to adjournment.
All the arbitrators were present. ^.r^^, .,^^
The protocol of the twenty-sixth conference having been "'p«ti"« «»*«•»•
corrected was approved, and the protocol of the last conference was
read and approved, and was signed by the president and secretary of
the tribunal.
On the proposal of Sir Alexander Gockburn, as one of the arbitrators,
the tribunal permitted tliat the counsel of Her Bntanuic Majesty
should present, on the question of interest, sf note which should be
directly communicated by the agent of Her Brittannic Majesty to the
agent of the United States, in order that the latter may prepare a reply
to it, if he thinks fit
The tribunal desired that these two communications on the part of
the respective agents should be presented at the conference which will
be held with closed doors on Monday, the 2d of September, at half past
12 o^clock.
44
ARBITBATION AT GENEVA^
The tribnoal proceeded to the consideration of the matters submitted
to them, and unanimously declared that the ^^ double claims^ should be
dismissed.
The tribunal having discussed in general the award of a gross sum,
requested Mr. Steempfli, one of the arbitrators, to present for the next
conference copies of a synoptical table which he has prepared on the
subject.
The conference was then adjourned until Monday, the 2d of Septenot-
ber, at half past 12 o'clock.
FREDERICK SOLOPia
ALEX. FAYBOT, Secretary.
PROTOCOL XXTX,
Mr. SUmapAi's
afatMneat and Sir ▲.
Cockbom'a nwno-
Beeard of the proceedings of the tribunal of arbitration at the twenty-ninth
conference held at Oeneva, in Smtzerlandj on the 2d of September^ 1872.
The conference was held with closed doors, pursuant to adjournment
All the arbitrators were present.
v«.«.u™- »..««. '^^^ protocol of the last conference was read and ap-
^ViT'rJIi.rdnir^ proved, and was signed by the president and secretary of
•«BuigroM. ^^^ tribunal. Count Sclopis, as president of the tribunal,
acknowledged the receipt, by the arbitrators, of the note presented by
the agent of Her Britannic Majesty on the question of interest, and of
the reply to the same, presented by the agent of the United States.
The tribunal then proceeded to consider that question, and a majority
of four to one decided that interest should be admitted as an element
in the calculation for the award of a sum in gross.
Mr. StaBmpfli, as one of the arbitrators, presented to the tribunal
copies of the synoptical table which he had prepared as a proposition
for the determination of a sum in gross :
B9iimaAe of Mr. Siaempfli for the determnatUmof a turn in gro9$.
Amooot of elaims
Expenditure In ponnit.
PnwpeotiTe proflto and Interruption of rajtkga
After the
lant Amerl*
can table.
|1<4S7.000
6.735,010
4^000,100
1
Brttiah
aliowanoe.
17,074,000
040,000
Stmok oat aa
sncli, but fiM"
wagea
85 percent on
^e Talaea of
veeaela
tlQ.906,00
Stmok out.
588,000
400,000
11,803.000
Boandanm | ^ ^9,000,000
Interest from the Ut January, 1864, to the 16th September, 1872.
1. At 5 per cent during eight years and eight and one-half months. .8 x |60O.00Os$4,800,00O
84 X 50,000« 435,000
•5,S85,00O
17.995,000
Eventually one year's interest more 17,825,000
PROTOCOLS OF THE CONFERENCES. 45
1 At 6 per <)est dorine eight yean and eight and one-half months. .8 x $790,000=45,760,000
8^ X 60,000» 510,000
6,870,000 118,270,000
Eventoallyone year's interest more 16,990,000
3. At 7 per eent. dnring eight years and eight and one-half months .8 x |840,000=|6,720,000
8ix 70,000== 595,000
7,315,000 119,315,000
Srentually one year's interest more 840,000
30,155,000
Boond snm 80,000,000
Sir Alexander Oockburn, as one of the arbitrators, then presented
the following memorandom on Mr. Stsempfli's estimate :
Memorandum on Mr, StmapJWs estimate.
The fibres in Mr. St»mpfli's paper require some material correctionB, as to which,
as aoon as they are pointea out, there can be no doabt.
The total claim by the United States of $14,437,000 will be found, on an inspection
of the Unit^ States tables, to include the following amounts :
a. All the double claims, without exception, notwithstanding the clear expression of
opinion on the part of the tribunal that they were to be struck out These double
elainis amount to $1,682,243.
h. The gross freights of the merchant-vesselB, amounting to $1,007,153, as to which
the tribunal has decided that at the utmost only half, that is to say $503,576, should be
allowed. * •
c The new claim of $1,450,000, advanced for the first time on the 19th of Augnst last,
as to which claim Mr. Stssmpfli declared he would exclude it from consideration. It
is important to observe that this new claim comprises over and above the entirely un-
supported claims for shares of vessels, and for additional personal effects, the claims
for wages extending over very long and varying periods. The tribunal has decided
that one year's wages in respect of the w halers are to be allowed in lieu of prospective
catch. For this one year's wages, Mr. Staempfli has made a separate allowance of $588,000
(an allowance which can be shown to be excessive by at least $88,000,) and he has
therefore includ')d in his calculation the claim for wages twice over.
It is therefore clear that Mr. Stcempfli, while he excludes some of the items of claim
which the tribunal has disallowed, has omitted to strike out the other items, against
which the tribunal has pronounced its opinion ; but it is equallv clear that all the dis-
allowed items most be excluded before a comparison can be fairly or usefully made be-
tween the United States claim and the British estimate.
It is necessary, therefore, in the first place, to deduct from the United States claim
the three amounts specified in paragraphs a, &, and o, respectively, which will leave, as
is shown b^ the annexed table, a properly reduced claim of $10,801,324, as against the
British estimate of $7,465,764, if the difference between paper and gold currency be for
the present purpose disregarded.
It must, however, be carefully borne in mind that the claim of $10,801,324 indudes
the following items :
1. A claim o/ $659,021 for setmred earnings f which ought beyond a doubt to be reduced
by an amount equivalent to the wear and tear of the whalers and their outfits, and the
coosamption of stores, which must have taken place before these earnings could be
secured, and for which a deduction should be made, inasmuch as the full original values
of the vessels and tbeir outfits have been allowed.
2. The claims in respect of the merchant vessels. — These are valued in the United States
tables at more than $60 per ton on the average, although, according to the well-known
ofiicial report presented to Congress in 1870, the cost of a first-class perfectly new Amer-
ican vessel, made ready for sea, did not average that amount per ton, and althonsh,
according to the same report, the average value of American vessels engaged in the
foreign trade was, in 1861, only $41, and has been since only $46 per ton,
3. The claims in respect of cargoes^ the insurancesj commissions, and profits of the same,
which profits are sometimes claimed at the rate of twenty, fifty, and eveu one hundred
per cent. The various important considerations mentioned at page 13 of the British
report, and the fact that numerous claims for cargoes, presented for the first time in
April last, are unsupported by any vouchers, bills of lading, or like documents, un-
doabtedly require that a very considerable reduction should be made under this head.
4. Several large claims not supported by any affidavit or declaration on oath.
46 ARBITRATION AT GENEVA.
5. 2fumerou8 clearly extravagant claime specified in the British reports, such as the
claim of $7,000 by a harpooner for personal injaries, the claim, by a passenger, of
$1JO,000 for loss of office as consul, all the numerous claims by the masters of whalers
for wages, sometimes at the rate of (15,000 or $20,000 a vear, and which are. of course,
superseded by Mr. Stiempfli's allowance of $568,000, and many other equally exorbi-
tant claims, more particularl;p^ specified in the British reports.
From these considerations it is manifest that more than ample justice will be done
to the United States by taking a mean between the claim of $10,301,324, and the
British estimate of $7,464,764, and by adding thereto the allowance of $588,000 in lien
of prospective catch.
Mr.'Stfiempfli has also added, for some unknown reason, 25 per cent, on the values
of the whalers, an addition which can be easily shown to be equivalent to alto-
gether allowing over and above the original values of the whalers and their outfits
a percentage exceeding 90 per cent., and this although the question of interest is still
left open to the decision of the tribunal.
Admittingybowever, this extraordinary addition of 25 per cent., and the excessive
estimate of the wages, it is shown by the annexed table that if Mr. Stismpfli's figures
be properly corrected, the estimate would scarcely exceed $10,000,000, even withont
any allowance being made for the great difference between the values of the paper
and the gold currency.
Mr. Stasmpfli's calculations of interest (supposing interest to be allowed) are made
at the alternative rates of 5, 6, and 7 per cent., for the period of eight and one-half years,
from the first of January, 1864, to the 15th or September, 1872.
But to this he proposes to add another year's interest for the period of delay in pay-
ment after the date of the award which is allowed by the treaty.
The tribunal has no power, under the treaty, to award payment of a f^ross sum with
interest. The amount awarded is to be paid withont interest, and if the tribunal
were to add a year's interest to the gross sum which they would otherwise award, in
respect of the year allowed for payment by the treaty, they would be doing indirectly
what they have no authority to do directly, and would (it is submitted) be contravening
the true mtent of the treaty, and charging interest where it was the intention of the
treaty that interest should not be paid.
This is the more objectionable because it is proposed to charge a whole year's inter-
est at either 5, 6, or 7 per cent., whereas the British government has the option, under
the treaty, to pay the sum awarded at any time teithtn the year allowed for that pur-
pose, and might. certainly raise the money, (if that operation were necessary,) at a
considerable lower rate of interest than 5 per cent.
Table in rtferenee to the estimate of Mr, Stcempjli.
Total United States claim in the laat revised tablee^ $14,437,143
Keceaaary redactiona to be made from the above anpppoaed total :
DoubleoUima $1,689,243
New claims 1,450.000
One-half groaa freight 503,576
3.635.819
Making the total redaced claim 10,801,394
As against the British estimate of 7, 464, 764
The mean of these two snms is 9,133,044
Add to this Mr. Stempfli's allowances in Ilea of prospective catoh :
One year's wages $588,000
Twenty«flve per cent, on the values of vessels 400,000
988.000
10.131.044
The tribanal also considered the question of the award of a sam in
gross.
After a detailed deliberation, a majority of the tribanal of four to one
decided, under the Vllth article of the treaty of Washington, to award in
gross the sam of $15,500,000, to be paid in gold by Great Britain to the
United States, in the time and manner provided by the said article of
the treaty of Washington.
The conference then adjonrned until Friday, the 6th instant, at half
past 12 o'clock, to be held with closed doors.
FKEDERICK SCLOPIS.
ALEXANDER FAVROT, Secretary.
PROTOCOLS OF THE CONFERENCES. 47
PEOTOCOL XXX.
Beeard of the proceedings of the tribunal of arbitration at the thirtieth
conference held at Oenevaj in Switzerland^ on the ^th of Septem-
ber j 1872.
The conference was held with closed doors pursaant to adjournment.
All the arbitrators were present.
The protocol of the last conference was read and ap- ofSSSS* *""**
proved, and was signed by the president and secretary of
the tribunal.
The tribunal proceeded to consider a draught of their decision.
At the request of the tribunal, Mr. Adams and Sir Alexander Oock-
bum kindly undertook to provide for the translation into English of the
French text of this act of decision.
The conference was then adjourned until Monday, the 9th instant, at
half past twelve o'clock, to be held with closed doors.
FBEDEEICK SCLOPIS.
ALEX. FAVEOT, Secretary.
PEOTOCOL XXXI.
Record of (he proceedings of the tribunal of arbitration at the thirty-first
conference held at Geneva^ in Smtzerlandy on the 9th of September ^ 1872.
The conference was held with closed doors pursuant to adjournment.
All the arbitrators were present.
The protocol of the last conference was read and'ap- ^Z'SZ.'^^uA
proved, and was signed by the president and secretary of Ji'Siii'of^SSL^*"'
the tribunal.
Mr. Adams and Sir Alexander Oockbum presented the English trans-
lation of the act of decision, which they had kindly undertaken to pre-
pare.
The tribunal definitely adopted the act of decision, which was consid-
ered at the last conference, and decided to have it printed.
Yisconnt d'ltajuba, as one of the arbitrators, made the following
statement :
ViBooant d'lt^jabik while signing the decision, remarks, with regard to the recital
ooDoeming the supply of coals, that he is of opinion that eyery govern ment is free to
fmnirii to the beUigerents more or less of that article.
The tribunal resolved that the decision should be signed at the next
conference, which was to be held with open doors, and adjourned until
Saturday, the 14th instant, at half past 12 o'clock.
FEEDEEICK SOLOPIS.
ALEX. FAVEOT, Secretary.
48 ' ARBITRATION AT GENEVA.
PROTOCOL XXXg,
Record of the proceedings of the tribunal of arbitration at the thirty-seC'
ond conference held at tienevaj in Switzerland^ on the lUh cf Septem-
ber ^ 1872.
The conference was held with open doors, parsnant to adjoamment.
8iRo.tar«or.inrd ^^ ^^^ arbitratoFs and the agents of the two governments
• Dd diMolatioa of WCTO PlCSent.
The protocol of the last conference was read and ap-
proved, and was signed by the president and secretary of the tribunal.
The president then presented the decision of the tribunal on the ques-
tion of the "Alabama claims,'' and directed the secretary to read it ;
which was done, and the decision was signed by Mr. Charles Francis
Adams, Count Frederic Sclopis, Mr. Jacques Stsempfli, and Viscount
d'ltajuba, arbitrators, in the presence of the agents of the two govern-
ments.
A copy of the decision thus signed was delivered to each of the agents
of the two governments, respectively, and the tribunal decided to have
a third copy placed upon record ; they further decided that the decision
should be printed and annexed to the present protocol.^
Sir Alexander Cockburn, as one of the arbitrators, having declined
to assent to the decision, stated the grounds of his own decision, which
the tribunal ordered to be recorded as an annex to the present protocol.'
The tribunal resolved to request ttie council of state of Oeneva to
receive the archives of the tribunal and to place them among its owa
archives.
The president. Count Sclopis, then directed the secretary to make up
the record of the proceedings of the tribunal at this thirty-second and
last conference, as far as completed ; which was done, and the record
having been read and approved, was signed by the president and secre-
tary of the tribunal and the agents of the two governments.
Thereupon the president declared the labors of the arbitrators to be
finished and the tribunal to be dissolved.
FEEDERICK SCLOPIS.
J. C. BANCROFT DAVIS.
TENTBRDEN.
ALEX. FAVROT, Secretary.
1 For a copy of this paper, see post, No. iii.
3 This paper was not annexed to the official protocol delivered to the agent of the
United States. A paper entitled *' Reasons of Sir Alexander Cockburn for disaentiag
from the award of the tribnnal of arbitration" was published in the supplement to the
London Gazette of the 24th of September, 1872, and a copy of this number of the
Gazette was transmitted to the agent of the United States as the paper that should
have been annexed to the protocol. This paper is printed hereafter under the title
** Sir A. Cockbnm's Opinions.''
Ill -DECISION AND AWARD
Made by the tribunal of arbitration constituted by virtue of the first article
of the treaty concluded at Washingtan the Sth of May, 1871, between the
United States of America and Her Majesty the Queen of the United King-
dom of Great Brituin and Ireland,
The United States of America and Her Britannic Majesty having
agreed by Article I of the treaty concluded and signed at
Washington the Sth of May, 1871, to reffir all the claims ».<Sr«r'th°^ uSty
" generically known as the Alabama claims " to a tribunal of °^^^"'"'""°"
arbitration to be composed of five arbitrators named :
One by the President of the United States,
One by Her Britannic Majesty,
One by His Majesty the King of Italy,
One by the President of the Swiss Confederation,
One by His Mnjesty the Emperor of Brazil;
And the President of the United States, Her Britannic Majesty, His
Majesty the King of Italy, the President of the Swiss Con- App<.intm.ator«r-
federation, and His Majesty the Emperor of Brazil having '''»"»""
respectively named their arbitrators, to wit :
The President of the United States, Charles Francis Adams, esquire;
Her Britannic Majesty, Sir Alexander James Edmund Cockburu,
bsirouet, a member of Her Majesty's privy council, lord chief justice
of England ;
His Majesty the King of Italy, His Excellency Count Frederick Sclopis,
of Salerano, a knight of the Order of the Annunciata, minister of state,
senator of the Kingdom of Italy ;
The President of the Swiss Confederation, M. James Stampfli ;
His Majesty the Emperor of Brazil, his Excellency Marcos Antonio
d'Araujo, Viscount d'ltajubd, a grandee of the Empire of Brazil, mem-
ber of the council ot H. M. the Emperor of Brazil, and his envoy extraor-
dinary and minister plenipotentiary in France.
And the five arbitrators above named having assembled at Geneva (in
Switzerland) in one of the chambers of the H6tel de Ville prwniMiio., of
on the 15th of December, 1871, in conformity with the terms *"'"*"'»
of tbe second article of the treaty of Washington, of tbe 8th of May of
that year, and having proceeded to the inspection and verification of
their res|)ective powers, which were found duly authenticated, the
tribunal of arbitration was declared duly organized.
The agents named by each of the high contracting parties, by virtue
of the same Article II, to wit :
^ For the United States of America, John C. Bancroft Davis, esquire ;
'' And for Her Britannic Majesty, Charles Stuart Aubrey, Lord Tent-
erden, a peer of the United Kingdom, companion of the Most Honor-
able Oitier of the Bath, assistant under-secretary of state for loreign
affairs ;
Whose powers were found likewise duly authenticated, then delivered
to each of the arbitrators the printed case prepared by ^^^.^^ ^^^^
each of the two parties, accompanied by the documents, the *"'" *****
official correspondence, and other evidence on which each relied, in con-
formity with the terms of the third article of the said treaty.
4t B
50 ARBITRATION AT GENEVA.
III virtue of the decision made by the tribunal at its first session, the
DHirery of count- couutercase and additional documents, correspondence, and
erc«.«. evidence referred to in Article IV of the said treaty were
delivered by the respective agents of the two parties to the secretary of
the tribunal on the 15th of April, 1872, at the chamber of conference,
at the Hotel de Ville of Geneva^
The tribunal, in accordance with the vote of adjournment passed at
Delivery of .rgu- thcir sccoud scssiou, held on the 16th of December, 1871,
mrnt.. re-assembled at Geneva on the 15th of June, 1872 ; and the
agent of each of the parties duly delivered to each of the arbitrators,
and to the agent of the other party, the printed argument referred to
in Article V of the said treaty.
The tribunal having since fully taken into their consideration the
Deliberation, of trcaty, aud also* the cases, counter-cases, documents, evi-
tribund. deuce, and arguments, and likewise all other communica-
tions, made to them by the two parties during the progress of their sit-
tings, and having impartially and carefully examined the same,
Has arrived at the decision embodied in the present award:
AwHrcL
Whereas, having regard to the Vlth arid Vllth articles of the said treaty,
the arbitrators are bound under the terms of the said Vlth article, " in
deciding the matters submitted to them, to be governed by the three
rules therein specified and by such principles of international law, not
inconsistent therewith, as the arbitrators shall determine to have been
applicable to the case ;"
And whereas the '' due diligence '^ referred to in the first and third of
DefinitioD of due ^hc sald Hilcs ought to be exercised by neutral governments
j,i.«e,,«.. ijj exact proportion to the risks to which either of the bel-
ligerents may be exposed, from a failure to fulfil the obligations of nea>
trality on their part ;
And whereas the circumstances out of which the facts constituting the
subject-matter of the present controversy arose were of a nature to call
for the exercise on the part of Her Britannic Majesty's government of all
possible solicitude for the observance of therightsand the duties involved
in the proclamation of neutrality issued by Her Majesty on the 13th day
of May, 1861 ;
And whereas the effects of a violation of neutrality committed by
Kfleci of » com. uicans of the construction, equipment, and armament of a
mi««.n. vessel are not done away with by any commission which the
government of the belligerent power, benefited by the violation of neu-
trality, may afterwards have granted to that vessel ; and the ultimate
step, by which the offense is completed, cannot be admissible as a ground
for the absolution of the offender, nor can the consummation of his
fraud become the means of establishing his innocence ;
And whereas the privilege of exterritoriality accorded to vessels of
Extcrritomiitj of war has been admitted into the law of nations, not as au
Te«ei»of*rar. absolutc right, but solcly as a proceeding founded on tUe
principle of courtesy and mutual deference between different nations,
and therefore can never be appealed to for the protection of acts done
in violation of neutrality ;
And whereas the absence of a previous notice cannot be regarded as a
Effect of want of fallurc lu auy consideration required by the law of nations,
notice. in those cases in which a vessel carries with it its own con-
demnation ;
And whereas, in order to impart to any supplies of coal a character
8appiie«ofcod. incousistcut with the second rule, prohibiting the use of
DECISION AND AWARD OF THE TRIBUNAL. 51
neatral port« or waters, as a base of naval operations for a belligerent,
it is necessary that the said supplies should be connected with special
circumsl^mces of time, of persons, or of place, which may combine to
give them such chanicter ;
And whereas, with respect to the vessel called the Alabama, it clearly
results from all the facts relative to the construction of the R„p,„,ib.iityfar
ship at first designated by the number "29(P in the port of »ft'<f»heAUb.ma.
Liverpool, and its equipment and armament in the vicinity of Terceira
through the agency of the vessels called the '* Agrippina" anil the " Ba-
hama,^ dispatched from Great Britain to that end, that the British gov-
ernment failed to use due diligence in the performance of its neutral
obligations ; and especially that it omitted, notwithstanding the warnings
and official representations made by the diplomatic agents of the United
States during the construction of the said number *'20(>,"to take in due
time any eft'ective measures of prevention, and that those orders which
it did give at last, for the detention of the vessel, were issued so late that
their execution was not practicable ;
And whereas, after the escape of that vessel, the measures taken for
its pursuit and arrest were so imperfect as to lead to no result, and
therefore cannot be considered sufficient to release Great Britain from
the responsibility already incurred ;
And whereas, in despite of the violations of the neutrality of Great
Britain committed by the " 290,'' this same vessel, later known a« the
confe<lerate cruiser Alabama, was on several occasions freely admitted
into the |K>rts of colonies of Great Britain, instead of being proceeded
against as it ought to have been in any and every port within British
jurisdiction in which it might have been found ;
And whereas the government of Her Britannic Majesty cannot justify
itself for a failure in due diligence on the plea of insufficiency of the
legal means of action which it possessed :
Four of the arbitrators, for the reasons above assigned, and the fifth
for reasons separately assigned by him,
Are of opinion —
That Great Britain has in this case failed, by omission, to fulfill the
daties prescribed in the first and the third of the rules established by the
Vlth article of the treaty of Washington.
And whereas, with respect to the vessel called the " Florida," it results
from all the facts relative to the construction of the " Oreto"
• MX ^ £* 'w * 1 ia^*x^* ^1 n 1*1 Aod oi th0 Florida.
in the port of Liverpool, and to its issue therefrom, which
facts failed to induce the authorities in Great Britain to resort to meas-
ures adequate to prevent the violation of the neutrality of that nation,
notwithstanding the warnings and repeated representations of the agents
of the United States, that Her M^esty's government has failed to use
dae diligence to fulfil the duties of neutrality;
And whereas it likewise result^s from all the fact-s relative to the stay
of the ^^ Oreto" at Nassau, to her issue from that port, to her enlistment of
men, to her supplies, and to her armament, with the co-operation of the
British vessel "Prince Alfred," at Green Gay, that there was negligence
on the part of the British colonial authorities ;
And whereas, notwithstanding the violation of the neutrality of Great
Britain committed by the Oreto, this same vessel, later known as the
confederate cruiser Florida, was nevertheless on several occasions freely
admitted into the ports of British colonies;
And whereas the judicial acquittal of the Oreto at Nassau cannot re-
lieve Great Britain from the responsibility incurred by her under the
principles of international law; nor can the fact of the entry of the
52 ARBITRATION AT GENEVA.
Florida into the confederate port of Mobile, aud of its stay there during
four months, extinguish the responsibility previously to that time incur-
red by Great Britain :
For these reasons,
The tribunal, by a majoritv of four voices to one, is of opinion —
That Great Britain has in this case failed, by omission, to fulfil the
duties prescribed in the first, in the second, and in the third of the rules
established by Article VI of the treaty of Washington.
And whereas, with respect to the vessel called the *• Shenandoah,'' it re-
sults from all the facts relative to the departure from Lon-
d^«t °lf/rr*ctvmi don of ihe merchant- vessel the " Sea King," and to the trans-
Meib«Hn.e. formatiou of that ship into a confederate cruiser under the
name of the Shenandoah, near the island of Madeira, that the govern-
ment of Her Britannic Majesty is not chargeable with any failure, down
to that date, in the use of due diligence to fulfil the duties of neutrality;
Biit whereas it results from all the facts connected with the stay of
the Shenandoah at Melbourne, and especially with the augmentation
which the British government itself admits to have been clandestinely
effected of her force, by the enlistment of men within that port, that
there was negligence on the part of the authorities at that place:
For these reasons,
The tribunal is unanimously of opinion —
That Great Britain has not failed, by any act or omission, '^ to fulfil any
of the duties prescribed by the three rules of Article VI in the treaty of
Washington, or by the principles of international law not inconsistent
therewith," in respect to the vessel called the Shenandoah, during the
period of time anterior to her entry into the port of Melbourne ;
And, by a majority of three to two voices, the tribunal decides that
Great Britain has failed, by omission, to fulfil the duties prescribed by
the second and third of the rules aforesaid, in the case of this same ves-
sel, from and after her entry into Hobson's Bay, and is therefore re-
sponsible for all acts committed by that vessel after her departure from
Melbourne, on the 18th day of February, 1865.
And 80 far as relates to the vessels called —
The Tuscaloosa, (tender to the Alabama,)
And of the Tncrn- „^'» r^t
ioo«, n«r..i«*,T«- The Clarence,
c„^..oaArc..r. Thc Tacouy, Aud
The Archer, (tenders to the Florida,)
The tribunal is unanimously of opinion —
That such tenders or auxiliary vessels, being properly regarded as ac-
cessories, must necessarily follow the lot of their principals, and be sub-
mitted to the same decision which applies to them respectively.
And so far as relates to the vessel called "Retiibution,"
The tribunal, by a majority of three to two voices, is of
No n»poiMibility . . 7 J J J t
for the Retribution, OpiniOU—
Nw'.ne.®TM7i«hV*i That Great Britain has not failed by any act or omission
*«e,orch,ck»n«u«a. ^ fyi\^\ auy of thc dutics prescribcd by the three rules of
Article VI in the treaty of Washington, or by the principles of inter-
national law not inconsistent therewith.
And so far as relates to the vessels called —
The Georgia,
The Sumter,
The Nashville,
The Tallahasse, and
The Chickamauga, respectively,
DECISION AND AWARD OF THE TRIBUNAL. 53
TbB tribunal is uaanimously of opinion —
That Great Britain has not failed, by any actor omission, to fulfil any
of the duties prescribed by the three rules of Article VI in the treaty of
Washington, or by the principles of international law not inconsistent
therewith.
And so far as relates to the vessels called —
The Sallie,
The Jefferson Davis, ^oo i>«^i«'. mu*k.
r>»« -«r • Iici4ton. nmi V. H.
Ine 31USIC, Joy not ukea into
The Boston, and
The V. H. Joy, respectively.
The tribunal is unanimouslj'^ of opinion —
That they ought to be excluded from consideration for want of evi-
dence.
And whereas, so far as relates to the particulars of the indemnity
claimed by the United States, the costs of pursuit of the con- einim* lor com or
federate cruisers are not, in the judgment of the tribunal, i>""""i ""» «""*e<i
properly distinguishable from the general expenses of the war carried
on by the United States:
The tribunal is, therefore, of opinion, by a majority of three to two
voices —
That there is no ground for awarding to the United States any sum
by way of indemnity under this head.
And whereas prospective earnings cannot properly be made the sub-
ject of compensation, inasmuch as they depend in their na- 4„,, f„, pro.p«ct
ture upon future and uncertain contingencies : iTcwrmn*..
The tribunal is unanimously of opinion —
That there is no ground for awarding to the United States any sum
by way of indemnit^^ under this head.
And whereas, in order to arrive at an equitable compensation for the
damages which have been sustained, it is necessary to set sn frei.hu odi,
aside all double claims for the same losses, and all chiims for '""**"^
" gross freights," so far as they exceed " net freights f
And whereas it is just and reasonable to allow interest at a reason-
able rate ;
And whereas, in accordance with the spirit and letter of the treaty
of Washington, it is preferable to adopt the form of adjudication of a
sum in gross, rather than to refer the subject of compensation for further
discussion and deliberation to a board of assessors, as provided by
Article X of the said treaty :
The tribunal, making use of the authority conferred upon it by Article
VII of the saia treaty, by a majority of four voices to one, ^ismoooo com-
awards to the United States a sum of $15,500,000 in gold, p«»'««'"«»**«i««i^
as the indemnity to be paid by Great Britain to the United States, for
the satisfaction of all the claims referred to the consideration of the
tribunal, conformably to the provisions contained in Article VII of the
aforesaid treatv.
And, in accordance with the terms of Article XI of the said treaty,
the tribunal declares that ''all the claims referred to in the Ti.«.i«imcnttob«
treaty as submitted to the tribunal are hereby fully, per- "••'•
fectly, and finally settled.'^
Furthermore it declares, that ''each and everyone of the said claims,
'Whether the same may or may not have been presented to the notice of,
or made, preferred, or laid before the tribunal, shall henceforth be con-
sidered and treated as finally settled, barred, aiid inadmissible."
In testimony whereof this present decision and award has been made
54 ARBITRATION AT GENEVA.
in duplicate, and signed by the arbitrators who have given their assent
thereto, the whole being in exact conformity with the provisions of
Article VII of the said treaty of Washington".
Made and concluded at the Hotel de Ville of Geneva, in Switzerland,
the 14th day of the month of September, in the year of our Lord one
thousand eight hundred and seventy-two.
CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS.
FREDERICK SCLOPIS.
STAMPFLI.
VICOMTE d'ITAJUBA.
IV-OPINIONS OF THE ARBITRATORS.
1. Opixioxs of Count Frederick Sclopis.
2. Opinions of V^iscount d'ItajuiU.
3. Opinions of Mr. Jacques St^mpfli.
4. Opinions of Mr. Charles Francis Adams.
r>. Opinions of Sir Alexander Cockburn.
OPINIONS OF COUNT SCLOPIS.
I. The three questions of law on which the tribunal of
ARBITRATION, IN ITS SITTING OF THE 25TH JULY, 1872, REQUEST-
ED ELUCIDATIONS FROM THE COUNSEL OF THE HIGH PARTIES
PRESENT AT THE BAR.
In it« sitting of the 25th July, 1872, on the proposal of Viscount
d'ltajubd, one of the arbitrators, Ihe tribunal decided to require a writ-
ten or printed statement or argument from the counsel of Great Britain
upon the following questions of law :
1. The question of due diligence generally considered.
2. The special question as to the effect of the commissions of confed-
erate ships of war entering British ports.
3. The special question as to supplies of coal in British ports to con-
federate ships, with the right to the other party to reply either orally or
in writing, as the case may be 5 the whole under the terms of Article V
of the treaty of Washington.
The questions refer to Article VI of the treaty of Washington, which
is as follows :
Articxe VI. In deciding the matters submitted to the arbitrators they shall bo gov-
erned by the foUowing three rules, which are agreed apon by the high contracting
parties as rules to be taken as applicable to the case, and by such« principles of inter-
Opinions du Comte Fr6d6ric SdopU ftnr les trois queatlons de droit 8ur lesqnelles 1e tribunal
d'arbitragey dana sa seance dn 25jaill€t li^2y a detnandS des ^claircissenients aux conseiU dee
hauteB parties pr6sentes d, la bar re.
Bans la 8<$ance du 25 juillet 1872, sur la proposition de M. le Vicomte d^Itnjnba, I'un
df« arbitres, le tribunal d<^cida de demander »u conseil de la Grande-Bretagne une
exposition ou argumentation, (^crite on imprimde, sur les trois questions de droit sni-
vantes :
1. La question des dues diligences, trait^e d^ine nmni^re g<5n<5rale;
2. La question sp^ciale de savoir quel a 6i^. IVftet des commissions poss<5d<^.es par
les vaisseaux de guerre conf<^d6r^s qui sont entrds dans des ))orts britanniques;
3. La question sp<$ciale des approviifionnements de charbon accordi^s aux vaisscaux
coDf(^(ler6s dans les ports britanniques.
Tout en r^servant h la partie adveree le droit de rdpondre, soit oralement, soit par
ecrit, tielon le eas, le tout aux termes de I'article V du trait<$ de Washington, les cpies-
tions se r<5f^rent k Varticle VI du trait<^ do Wiishington, aiusi cou^ii :
*'Articlk VI. Dans la decision des mati^res ii eux soumises, les arbitres seront guidc/i
par les irois regies suivantes, dont les hautes parties contractantes couviennent de
faire une application spdciale h cette question, et par les principes du droit des gens
56 ARBITRATION AT GENEVA.
national law not inconsistent therewith as the arbitrators shall determine to have been
applicable to the case :
RULES.
A nentral government is bonnd —
1. To use due diligence to prevent the fitting ont, arming, or equipping, within its
juriHdictioD, of any vessel which it has reasonable ground to believe is intended to
cruise or to carry on war against a power with which it is at peace; and also to use
like diligence to prevent the departure from it^ jurisdiction of any vessel intended to
cruise or carry on war as above, such vessel having been specially adapted, in whole or
in part, within such jurisdiction, to warlike use.
2. Not to permit or suffer either belligerent to make use of its ports or waters as the
base of naval operations against the other, or for the purpose of the renewal or aug-
mentation of military supplies or arms, or the recruitmont of men.
3. To exercise due diligence in its own ports and waters, and, as to all persons within
its jurisdiction, to prevent any violation of the foregoing obligations and duties.
Her Britannic Majesty hius commanded her high commissioners and plenipotentiaries
to declare that Her Majesty's government cannot assent to the foregoing rules as a
statement of principles of international law which were in force at the time when the
claims mentioned in Article I arose, but that Her Majesty's government, in order to
evince its desire of strengthening the friendly relations between the two countries, and
of making satisfactory provision for the future, ageees that in deciding the questions
between the two conntries arising out of those claims, the arbitrators should assume that
Her Majesty's government had undertaken to act upon the principles set forth in these
rules. Ami the high contracting parties agree to observe these rules as between them-
st^lves in future, and to bring them to the knowledge of other maritime powers, and to
invite them to accede to them.
Sir Roundell Palmer, formerly attorney-general, on behalf of Great
Britain, General C. Cnsbing, Messrs. Evarts and Waite, on behalf of
the United States, have been heard by means of their respective argu-
ments.
qui, sans ^tre en dt^saccord avec ces r^gles, auront 6t6 reconnus par lea arbitres comme
ayant 6i6 api)Jicables dans I'espece :
" REOT.ES.
"Un gouvernement neutre est tenu —
'*1. De faire les dues diligences pour prdvenir Parmement en guerre ou T^quipemout,
dans les limites ou s'exerce sa juridiction, de tout vaisseau quMI pent raisonnablement
soup^onner 6tre destine a croiser ou faire la guerre centre une puissance avec laqnelle
re gouvernement est en paix; de faire m<^me diligence pour empf'cher le d<^part hors
des limited de sa juridiction de tout navire destini^, a croiser ou faire la guerre, comme
il est dit ci-des«ns, quand ee navire aura 6t6 sp<^ciaiement a<lapl^, on tout ou en purtie,
dans les limites de sa dite juridiction, a des usages belligerants.
"•i. De ue permettre ni souftVir que I'un des l)ellig<^ rants fasse usage de ses port<8 ni
de ses eanx comme d'nne luise d'oueratious navales centre I'autre bellig^rant, ni pour
renimveler ou augmcnter ses munitious militaires et sou armement, ou s^y procurer ses
recrnls.
"IJ. D'exercer les dues diligences dans ces eaux, et d^empdcher qu'aucune personne,
dans Tenceiute de sa juridiction, ne viole les obligations et les devoirs pr6c<Sdeut-s.
"Sa Maje8t<^ britannique a charg^ ses hauts commissaires et pl^ui potent! a ires de
d<^clarer que le g(uivernement de sa Majest<5 ne saurait donner iton assentiment ans
regies pr^<:6dentes comme ii un expos^ de priucipes du droit des gens en viguenr
an moment oil se sent <51ev(^es les r(^clamations mentionees ii Tarticle I; mais, pour
donner un tcmoignage de son desir de fortifier les relations amicales entre les denx
pays et de prendre en vue de I'avenir des pr<?cautions satisfaisantes, le gouvernement
de sa Majcst<^ consent h. ce qu'en ddcidaut les questions qui naissent de ces r^elama*
tions entre les deux pays les arbitres tienuent pour accord^ que le gouvernement de
sa Majest'4^ a voulu agir en conformit<^ avec les principes dnonces dans ces regies. Les
haute's parties contractsintes s'engajjent ii observer ces ri^gles dans lenrs rapports
mutuels a I'avenir, et h les porter ^ la connaissance des autres puissances maritime^,
en les in vi taut h y adhc^rer."
Out ^t^ entendus, dans leurs plaidoyers respectifs. Sir Roundell Palmer, ci-devant
attorney-general, p(»ur la Graude-Bretagne, MM. le g<Sudral C. Cnshingi Evarts et
Waite, pour les ]£tats-Uuis.
OPINIONS OF COUNT SCLOPIS. 57
i. — Ihie diligence.
We are about to enter on the discussion of questions of principle.
The first which presents itself, which will serve as a moral
pole star in the opinions we shall have to form as we come
to the different practical cases which await our decision, is the true sig-
nification to be attached to the words ^^due diligence^^ which have beeu
employed in the first of the three rules laid down in Article VI of the
treaty of Washington. A length^' discussion has taken place between
the two powers as to the greater or less scope to be given to the
signification of these words. It assuredly cannot be said that there has
been any want of explanations on this point. In the original American
cikse we find the whole of a long passage from the Pandects of Ayliffe,
with copious quotations from the works of Story and Jones, as well as
statements of the practice followed on this point by the Supreme Court
of the United States and by the Scotch courts, besides eleven simple
quotations from different authors.
The original British case mentions "dw« diligence^^ and gives a defini-
tion of it, (p. 24 of the English text,) which is not absolute, and which
refers to historical facts. In its counter case the British government
enters into fuller explanations on the subject, (p. 21 of the English
text,) and it agrees with that of the United States in considering
that the words due diligence do not create any new or additional
obligation. They exact from the neutral, in the discharge of the duties
imposed on him, that measure of care, and no other, which is re-
quired by the ordinary principles of international jurisprudence, and
the absence of which constitutes negligence ; and to support this doc-
trine the British counter case cites a long passage from Reddie's work,
" Kesearches in Maritime and International Law.' Sir Eoundell Palmer
takes these words in the sense that a neutral should employ all the legiti-
mate means iu his power, attaching to these words a reasonable con-
struction. The United States seek to increase the measure of respon-
sibility, and they maintain that the belligerent has aright to require the
I. — " DUE DILIGENCE."
Xou8 allons aborder lea questions de principes. La premiere qui s'offre ^ nos yeux,
celle qui nous servira comnio de boussole morale dans les appreciations qn^l nous
faudra faire, parconrant les diflV^rents cas pratiques qui attendeut notre d^cisiou, c'est
lavdritable sij^niBcation ^ attrlbuer aux mots ''due diligence/' qui ont 6t-e employes
dans la premiere des trois r(*glus <5tablies par Varticle VI du traits de Washington.
Une longue discussion s'est <5tablie entre les deux puissances sur le plus ou le moins
d'<§t4*ndue qn'il fallait donner a la signification de ces mots. On ne pent pas dire
as8ur^oi<Mit qu'il y ait ddfant d'<^claircissements sur cette mati^re. Dans le premier
** Case^ am^ricain, on nous a donud tout un long passage des pandectes d'Ayliffe, de
copienses citations des ouvrages de Slory et de Jones, ainsi que des indications de la
jiirisprtidcnce suivie dans la matiere par la Cour supreme des £tats-Unis et par les
coiire ^'•coHsaiso^ ; de plus, onze simples citations d'auteurs.
Le premier '^Case'^ anglais parle de la ''due diligence," ot il en donne une definition
(page 24, texte anglais) qui nest point absolue, et qui s'cn rapporte anx faits bisto-
ricjQes. Dans le " Counter-case," le gouTernement britannique entre dans de plus nm-
ple^ explications h cet dgard, (page 21, texte anglais,) et il s'accorde avec celui des
]£tat:»-Uuis ii consid^rer que ces mots, lea dues diligences^ ne cr6ent aucune obligation
uouvelle ou supple men tai re. lis exigent du neutre, dans Paccomplissement des devoirs
qui lut Hont imposes, cette mesure de soin (et pas d'autre) qui est requise en vertu des
principos ordiuaires de la jurisprudence iuternationale, soin dont Pabsence constitute la
negligence et, pour appnyer sa doctrine, le "Counter-case" anglais produit un long
p;issage du livre de Rbddie, " Kecbercbes sur le droit maritime et international." Sir
Rouiidell Palmer prend ces mot^rdans le sens qu'un neutre doit employer tons les moycns
l^^j^itimes en son pouvoir en donnant k ces mots une port<5e raisonnable. Les !6tats-
Unis etendent le cas de responsabilit^ et ils sOutiennent quo le belligdrant a le droit de
58 ARBITRATION AT GENEVA.
neutral to enforce its mauicipal laws, and also the proclamations of its
executive. They assert, moreover, that the belligerent has the right to
require that the powers with which the neutral is armed should be aug-
mented by legislative measures.
Copious explanations have been furnished on either side by the parties
in dispute.
It seems to me that tlie most simple method of arriving at a defini-
tive opinion upon the legal bearing of the question is to keep steadily
in view the following ideas :
The words due diligence necessarily imply the idea of a relation be-
tween the duty and its object: it is impossible to define a priari and
abstractly an absolute duty of diligence. The thing to \^hich the dil-
igence relates determines its degree. Taking the scale of degrees of de-
fault a(;cording to the Roman law, descending from the dMti8 by the
culpa lata and culpa levis to the culpa levissima, we find that their appli-
cability changes according to the objects to which they refer. I [las^
over the responsibility of the guardian, of the trustee, and several other
cases 8))ecified in the law, and will only cite as examples cases in which
responsibility is incurred by the culpa Icvis and even levissima. Such is
that, for instance, which attaches to persons charged with the care of
explosive substances, or with looking after the safety of dams in time
of inundation, or in whose charge are -deposited papers of exceptional
importance. All these persons, from the fact alone of their having ac-
cepted these functions, are bound to exercise an amount of diligence
determined by the special object of these same functions.
In treating of political questions, the greatest extent which could be
given to the duties of diligence incumbent on a neutral would be to
require that he should act with regard to the belligerent as he would
act ill similar circumstances in his own interest.
It is undoubtedly right to take into account the requirements of a
belligerent with regard to a neutral, but these must not be pushed to
such a point as to embarrass the neutral in the normal exercise of bis
rights, or in the organization of his administrative functions.
demander an neiitre de mettre ^ exdcution scs lois d'ordre int^rieur ainsi que les pro-
clamatioiiH dc son pouvior ex6cutif ; iU pr<5teiideiit, de plus, qae le beUig^rant a le droit
de demaiider que les pouvoirs dout le neutre est arin6 soient augnieuKSs par niesure
li^gislative.
De graudes explications out 6t6 fournies de part et d'autre par les puissances en
disaccord.
II uie paralt quo la voie la plus simple pour arriver k fixer Idgulenient nos id<^e8 sur
la matii'ro est de se fixer sur les k\6e9 suivantes:
Les mots diligence due, contienuent ndcesHairemcnt I'idde d'un rapport du devoir h la
chose: il est impossible de ddtinir d priori abstraitenient uu devoir absolude diligence.
. C*e«t la chose i\ Jaquelle cette diligence se rapporte qui en determine le degre. Prenons
r^chelle des imputabilit^H selon le droit romaiu, en partaut du dolus pour desceudre
par la culpa lalaet la culpa {em juHqu'ii la culpa leriHsitnoy et nous trouverous que le.i
applicability se modifient d'apres les objets auxquels elles se r6n>reut. Je panse snr
la respou6abilit<$ du tuteur, du ddpositaire, et sur plusieursautres cas sp6cifi<Ss dans les
lois, pour ne citer que I'exemple des cus oil la responsabilitd est encourue par la culpa
levis, ou m(^nie par la leHssima. Telle est celle, par exemple, qui frappe celui qui est
charg6 de garder des matieres explosibles, ou qui doit veiller s'i la sdretd des digue-s
dans le temps des inondations, celui qui garde un (l<^pAt de papiers d^iue importance
exceptioimelle. Toutes ces personnes, par le sen! fait qu^elles ont accept^ ces ffMiction:»,
Bont tonnes d'exercer uno diligence ddterminde par I'objet si>6cial de c«'8 m(*med
fonctions.
£n se portant sur le terrain politique, la plus grande dtendue que Ton puis.sc
attiibuer aux devoirs de diligence d'un neutre sera de lui imposer dVn agir ^ Tdgard
dn bellig6rant comme 11 agirait pour son propre int<Sr6t dans des cas analogues.
11 est juste sans doute de tenir des exigences d'un bellig<Srant t\ Tegard d'un nentre,
mais il ne fant point les pousser au point de gcner le neutre dans Taction normale do
ses droits, dans Porganisme de ses fonctions gouvernautes.
OPINIONS OP COUNT SCLOPIS. 59
I willingly admit, on the other hand, that the duties of the nentral
power cannot be determined by the laws which that power may have
made in its own interest. This would be an easy means of eluding
positive responsibilities which are recognized by equity and imposed by
the law of nations. There exists between nations a general law, or, if
it is preferred, a common tie, formed by equity and sanctioned by re-
spect for reciprocal interests; this general law receives especial develop-
ment iii its application to acts which take place at sea, where no
frontiers are marked out, and where there is the greater necessity that
liberty should be secured by a common law, without which it would
be impossible to defend one's self by positive guarantees from the most
flagrant acts of injustice. This is what prompted the saying of one who
bad been brought up in habits of servility, to say, " The Emperor is
master of the earth, but the law is the mistress of the sea."* I grant
then the right of the belligerent to require that the neutral should not
shelter his responsibility under rules made by himself in his own interest,
and I enter fully into the views of Article VI of the .treaty of Wash-
ington, which simply gives the preference to rules of general equity
over the provisions of any particular system of legislature, whatever it
may be.
It does not, however, seem to me admissible that a belligerent should
be able to require of a neutral that, in order to fulfill his neutral duties,
he should incrense his military establishments or his ordinary system of
defense. This would be an encroachment on the independence of a state,
which is not bound to abdicate a portion of its material sovereignty
because it finds itself involuntarily in a special position with regard to
the belligerent. The neutral may be asked to put the powers of his
government into full activity in order to maintain his neutrality 5 he can-
not reasonably be expected to modify the organization of his administra-
tive machinery to serve the interests of another power.
We must beware of rendering the condition of neutrals too difficult
and almost impossible. The importance of circumscribing war is a mat-
J'admets volontiers, d'autre part, que les devoirs da neutre ue poissent pas Hre
d^tennin^Ss par lea lois que cette puissance se serait faites dans son propre iutdret.
n y anrait m nn moyen facile de se soustraire fi des responsabilit^s positives, que
iHiaitiS recouualt et que le droit des gens impose. Les nations ont entre elles un droit
commun. on, si on aiiue mieux uu lien conimun, fornid par P^quit^ et sanctionn6 par le
respect cles int<?r6ts r^ciproques ; ce droit couiinun se d^veloppe surtout en s'appli(iuant
aox faiU qui so passeut sur la mer, 1^ oti les confins ne sont point trac6s, oil la libertd
doit etre d'autant plus assur^e par nn droit couimun sans lequel il serait impossible de
se mettre tk convert des plus flagrante^ injustices par des garanties iiositives. C'est ce
qui faisait dire h cet ancien, nourri dans les habitudes du servilisme : ^* L^Empereur est
le maitre de la terre, niais la loi est la niaitresse de la mer.^' J'accorde, done, an
Mlig^rant d'exi^er que le neutre ne raette point d. couvert sa reponsabillit^ sons des
regies qiiMI se serait iix<5e8 dans des vnes de son seul int6r6t, et j'eotre pleinement dans
!« vnes de Particle VI du traits de Washington, qui ne fait que donner la pr<5f(6rence
aox regies de Pdqnitd g6n6rale sur les dispositions d'une 16gislation particuliere quelle
quVUe pnisse 6tre.
n ne me paralt pas cependant admissible qn'un bellig^rant pnisse exiger dn neutre
qoe, ponr remplir ses devoirs de nentralit<f, il augmeute sou pied militaire, son syst^me
ordinaire de defense. II y anrait hi une infraction h, rind6pendauce de cbaque <5tat, qni,
p<mr sc trouver involoutairement daus une position spdciale h, Pegard du bellig<5Tanty
o'e^t pas tenn d'abdiquer une portion de sa souverainet^ mat6rielle. On pent demander
an neutre de mettre en pleiue activit<S les ressorts de son gon vernement pour maintenir
u neatralit^^ ; on ne peut pafl raisonnableiucnt attendre de lui qu'il modide Porganisa-
tion de sa machine gonveruementale, pour servir les int<5rdts d'une autre puissance.
II fant bien se garder de reudre la condition des neutres par trop difficile et presque
jopowible. On parle tonjours de Pimportance de circonscrire la guerre, et si on acca-
^ Dix, lib. i, de Lege Rhodia.
.60 ARBITRATION AT GENEVA.
ter of coDtiuaal remark, and if neutrals are to be overwhelmed with a
harden of precautions and a weight of responsibility which is in excess
of the interest they have to remain neutral, they will be forced to take
an active part in the war ; instead of a proper inaction we should have
an increase of hostilities. There will no longer be any medii between
combatants; the disasters of war will be multiplied, and the part of
mediators, which neutrals have often undertaken and brought to a suc-
cessful conclusion, will forever disappear.
Let us then take a view which will induce neutrals and belligerents
mutually to respect one another. Let us take as a basis the two condi-
tions of neutrality laid down by Dr. L. Gessner.*
These are :
1. To take absolutely no part in the war, and to abstain from all that
might give an advantage to one of the belligerent parties.
2. Not to permit on the neutral territory any proximate hostile act of
one party against the other.
As to the measure of iictivity in the performance of the duties of a
neutral, I think the following rule should be laid down :
That it should be in a direct ratio to the actual danger to which the
belligerent will be exposed through the laxity^ of the neutral, and in an
inverse ratio to the direct means which the belligerent can control lor
arresting the danger.
This rule leads us to a solution of the question, so often discussed in the
documents presented, as to the initiative to be taken by the neutral in
order to preserve his neutrality to the profit of the belligerent.
Where the ordinary conditions of the country, or particular circum-
stances which have occurred on the territory of the neutral, constitute
a special danger for the belligerent, who has no direct means of protect-
ing himself from them, the neutral is bound himself to take the initia-
tive in order that the state of neutrality may be maintained with regard
to the two belligerents.
ble les neutres d'nn fardeau do precautions et d'nne respon8abilit6 qui d<Spa8so Pint^r^t
qu'ils out h rester daus la neiitralite, ou les forcera b, preudre une part active 4 la
giierre; au lieu d'uno couveuable inaction, on aura une aagmeutation d'hostilitds. II
u'y aura plus de medii entro les combattants ; les d<S8a8tres de la guerre se multiplieront,
et le r61e de m<Sdiateurs, quo les neutres ont souvent entrepris et conduit k bonne fin,
sera effaed h jamais.
Pla^ons-nous done k ce point de vue qui pnisse engager les neutres et les bellig^rants
k se respecter mutuel lenient. Prenons pour base les deux conditions de neiitralit45
telles qu'elles sont posdes par le docteur L. Gessner, c'est-i^ire que —
Les conditions de la ncutralit<S sont :
1. Qu'on ne prenne absolument aucune part h la guerre et qu'on s'abstienne de tout
ce qui pourrait procurer un avantage h Tune des parties belligdrantes.
2. Qu'on ne tol^re sur le territoire neutre aucune hostility immediate d'ane partie
contre Tautre.
Quant h la mesure de Vactiv'it6 dans I'accomplissement des devoirs du neutre, je crois
qu'il serait h propos d'<^tablir la formule suivante :
Qu'elle doit dtre en raison directe des dangers rdels que le belligdrant pent conrir
par le fait ou la tolerance du neutre, et, en raison inverse, des moyens directs que le bel-
lig6rant pent avoir d'6viter ces dangers.
Cette formule nous conduit k rdsoudre la question, si souvent d^battue dans les docu-
ments produits, de ^initiative k prendre par le neutre au profit du belligdrant ponr
sauvegarder sa neutrality.
L^ oil les conditions ordinares du pays, ou des circonstances particuli^res snrvennes
sur le territoire du neutre, constitueut un danger special pour le belligdrant qui ne
pent avoir des moyens directs de s'y soustraire, le neutre est tenn d'employer sou
initiative atin que V6tskt de neutrality se maintienne k Tdgard des deux bellig^rants.
* " The Law of Neutrality at Sea," BerUn, 1865, p. 22.
OPINIONS OF COUNT SCLOPIS. 61
This initiative may be taken either on account of a flagrant case of
some enterprise of one of the belligerents against the other, or on the
application of the belligerent denouncing a fact or a series of facts which
would constitute a violation of neutraMty in regard to him, i. c, which
would improve the position of one belligerent to the detriment of the
other.
It does not appear that the nentral could in such case release himself
from resiwnsibility by requiring the belligerent to furnish him with evi-
dence sufficient to institute regular proceedings before the courts. This
would be to reduce the belligerent to the condition of a mere subject of
the -government of the country. The law of nations is not contented
with these narrow measures of precaution ; it requires a larger measure
of assistance. This is demanded not only by the comitas inter gentes^
but also by the real necessity which nations are under to lend recii>rocal
aid and protection in order to maintain their independence and guaran-
tee their security.
The greater, then, the actual danger to the belligerent on the territory
of the neutral, the more is the latter bound to watch over his neutrality
and to i)revent its being violated to the profit of either of the belliger-
ents.
The matter appears under a somewhat different light when the bellig-
erent ciui, of himself, by the employment of his forces, hold his enemy
in check, even on the neutral territory. This case presents itself in par-
ticular when the geographical position of a state is sufficient of itself
to secure the means of promptly repressing any enterprise prepared on
the neutral territory. Under such circumstances the neutral would no
longer be bound to assume an initiative which would have no object. He
could not, however, from considerations of self-respect, allow his neu-
trality to be violated, and he would be bound to compl}*^ with any just
demand which might be addressed to him, in order to avoid any kind of
connivance with one or other of the belligerents.
If from abstract principles we pass to the consideration of the particular
facts for which the United States hold that Great Britain is responsible,
Cette initiative pent dtre mise en moavement, soit par an cas flagrant de quelqae
enlrepriBe cle Tun des beUig^rantA coiitre I'autre, Boit sur riustauce da beUig<^raut qui
denonce an fait on une s^rie de faits qni violeraient k son 6gard les regies de la neu-
trality— c'eHt-sVdire, qui rendraient uieilleure la position d'uu bellig^rant au detriment
de celle de I'autre.
II ne paralt pas qne le neutre pnisse, dans pareil cas, se d^harger de sa responsabi-
1116 en exigeatit du bellig^rant quMl Itii fournisse les preuves safllsantes ponr instituer
one procetinre r^.gnli^re devaut les tribnuanx. Ce serait r^duire lo. bellig^rant }i la
condition d^nn simple sajet du gouvernenient dn pays. Le droit des gens ne se con ten te
pas de ces dtroites mesures de prdeautionH : il lui faut plus de largenr d'.asHistance. Ce
ii*est pas seulenient la camiias intei' gentes qni la reclame, c'est le besoin r6e\ qu\)nt les
nations de se prater rdciproquement aide et protection pour maiuteuir leur inddpen-
dance et garantir lenr s^curit^.
Plus done il y aura ponr le bellig<^rant de dangers r^els sur le territ^ire dn neutre,
plus ct*lni-ci sera tenn de veiller sur sa neutrality, en empSchant quVUe ne soit violas
aa profit de Tnn on de I'autre des bellig^^raut-s.
ha chose se prdsente nn pen ditft^reniment lorsqne le bellig^rant pent, ^ Ini senl, par
Temploi de ses forces, tenir en ^chec son ennemi, mdine sur le territoire nentre. Ce cas
se pT^sente snrtout lorsqne la position g^ographique d'un ^tat sntUt d'elle-ni^me h
assurer les moyens de r^primer promptement tonte entreprise pr6par6e sur le teiTitoire
nentre. Dans' ces circonstances le neutre ne serait plus tenu de prendre une initiative
qni serait sans olijet. II ne ponn-a pas cependant tol^rer, par respect ponr ]ui-ui6me,
qn'ou viole sa neutrality, et il sera tenu de ddtV^rer k toute just^e demande qu'on lui
adresserait d'<Sviter toute esp^ce de connivence aveo I'un on Fautre des bellig^rants.
Si des principes abstraits nous pussons h la consideration des faits particuliers sur
leaqnels lea £tats-Unis croient que la responsabilit^ de TAngleterre est engug^e, uoa8|
62 ^ ARBITRATION AT GENEVA.
we must commence by discnHsing the construction of ships, and thecir-
cumstances under which such construction took plaee. Indeed, the fact
of the construction of the vessels, of their armament and equipment,
and of the export of arms, assumes a ditterent aspect according to the
circumstances of the time, the persons^ and th« localities in which it
occurred. If the government on whose territory the acts take place is
aware of a permanent state of affairs, leading to a decided probability
that such construction, armaments, and exports will beefiected with the
object of assisting the designs of a belligerent, the duty of vigilance on
the part of the government becomes more pressing, and exists to a greater
extent.
British unfriendliness.
The British government was fully informed that the confederates had
established in England a branch of their means of attack and
deiense against the U nited States. Commissioners represent-
ing the government of Richmond were domiciled in Loaidon, and had put
themselves in communiciition with the English government. Lord Russell
had received these confederate representatives in an unofficial way- The
first visit took place on the 11th of May, 1861, that is to say, three days
before the Queen's proclamation of neutrality, and four days before Mr.
Adams arrived in London as the minister of the United States ; and
further, the English government could not but know that great commer-
cial houses were managing the interests of the confederates at Liver-
pool, a town which from tliat time was very openly pronounced in favor
of the South. In Parliament itself opinions were before long oi>enly
expressed in favor of the insurgents. The Queen's ministers themselves *
did not disguise that, in their opinion, it would be very difficult for the
American Union to re-establish itself sis before. Then, strange to say,
the most influential members of the House of Commons were seen to
detach themselves, on this question, from the ministry of which they
had been the powerful supporters. The voice of Mr. Cobden and that
of Mr. Bright were raised in favor of the United States. The Amen-
de vons d^abonl parler de la construction des navires et des circonstanoos an mi Ilea
desqaelleH ces conHtructions eureut lien. Lt) fnit, en effet, de la conHtrnction des vais-
seauXf du lenr armetuent et ^iinip<«raeut, de rexportation des arnies de ^nerre, preiid
uu aspect di£r<6rent, selon les circonstanc^'s des t4)mps, des personnes et des lieux oh il
s'accoruplit. Si le gouvernement sur le territoire duquel lefait se passes a coiiuaisRance
d^un 6tat de cliuses permanent, auqiiel vienne se rattacher une prohabilil^ niarqa^
que de Hemblables constructions, armenients et exportations se fassent dans le bnt d«i
servir aux projet^ d'nn bellig6rant, le devoir de surveillance de la part de ccgonYerne>
ment devieut plus <Stendu et plus pressaiit.
Le gouvernement britannique ^tait pleinement inform^ que les conf^6r<^ am^ri-
cains du sud avaient ^tabli en Angleterre comme nne snccnrsale de leurs moyena
d'attaque et de defense vis-^-vis des £tats-Unis. Ub comit6 de repr^ti<*ntants du goa*
yernement de Bichnioud avait ^t<^ ^tabli h Londres, et 11 s'^tait mis en rapport avec le
gouvernement anglais. Lord Russell avait re^n les d^6gu^ des conf<6d<5r(^8, mais sans
caractere otUciel. La premiere visiie avait en lieu le 11 mai 1861 — cVst-^-dire, troia
jours avant la proclamation de neutrality de la reine et quatre joars avant Farriv^e de
M. Adams k Londres en qualit<$ de ministre des £rat8-Uuis. Le gouvernement anglais
ne pouvait pas ignorer non pins que de forte-s maisons de commerce soignaient lea Id-
t^Sr^ts des conf<Sd^r<^« & Liverpool, ville tr^s-prononc<Se d^s lors en favour de rAm6riqiie
du sud. II no tarda pas & se prononcer en plein Parlement une opinion tout k tskit
favorable anx insnrg^ du sud. Les ministres de sa Mfn^lu^ la Reine, eux-tndmea, iie
dissimul^rent point que dans leur mani^re de voir il etait tr^-difilcile qna riJoioa
am^ricainc pClt se r^tablir telle qn'elle etait anparavant. Alors, cbose Strange, on vit
des membres les plus influents de la Chambre des commanes se detacher, snr cette
question, du minist^re, dont ils avaient ^t^ de pnissants anxiUalres. La voix de M.
^Cobden et celle de M. Bright se firent entendre en favour des £tatB-Unis. Les Am^ri-
OPINIONS OF COUNT SCLOPIS. -63
cans of the North could have had no advocates more devoted to their
cause, and they did not fail to take advantage of their authority. These
great movements of public opinion in contrary directions formed as it
were an atmosphere of agitation which ought to have kept the British
ministry on its guard, in order that it might succeed in maintaining per-
fectly eqaal relations with the two belligerent parties.
Let us now turn from- these n^narks on the facts to the consideration
of the special law of the question. In the first of the rules laid down
in Article. VI of the treaty of Washington, mention is made of the due
diligence to prevent the buildiug, equipment, and arming of vessels,
which a government is bound to exercise, when it has reasonable ground
to believe that this building, arming, and equipping are for the purpose
of furnishing warlike aid to one of the belligerents.
The same* words occur again in the third rule, while they are want-
ing in the second. "Why sof asked Lord Cairns in the debate on the
trc^aty which took place in the House of Lords on the 1 2th June of last
yeuF. It seems to me that it might be answered : because, in the case
of the first and third rules there is room for investigations of persons
and circumstances to ascertain the facts denounced, whereas the second
relates to a series of evident facts on which no inquiry need be made as
regards credibility.
" What," continued the noble lord, " is the standard by which you can
measure due diligence ! Due diligence, by itself, means nothing. What
is clue diligence with one man, with one power, is not due diligence with
another man, with a greater power."
Duediligence, then, is determined, in my opinion, asl have already said,
bj the relation of the matter to the obligation imposed by law. But what
is the measure of the sttfficient reason f It will be furnished by the princi-
ples of the law of nations, and the character of the circumstances. And
bere, not to leaver the question in ambiguity, I will examine some of the
propositions contained in the argumt^nt of Her Britannic Majesty's
counsel on the first of the points mentioned by the tribunal in its reso-
caius An nord ue pouvaient avoir (VavocAts plus d6yon6s k lenr cause, et ils ne man-
qnerent pas de se pr^valoir de It^ur autorite. Ces grands monvcDieuts de ropiuion
piibliqne dans des sens opiHisds Tun h Tautre formaient com me line atmosphere d'agita-
tion, qui devait tenir ^veiU^ le ministbre britanniqne. afin de pouvoir se maintenir
dans des rapports parfaitement ^giinx avec les deux parties belligdrantes.
Passons raaintenant de ces remaiqiies snr les faits ii des consid^^rations snr ce droit
special. Daus la premiere des regies posdes h Farticle VI dn traits de Washington, il
e«t parl<$ de la due diligence h empdcher les constructions, dqniperaents et armements
de vaisseaux qn'un gouvernement est tenu de ddployer quand il a un •' reasonable
^n>«nd" de croiro que ces constructions, armements et <^quipements"ont pour objet
d aiiler, pour Tnsage de la guerre, iiu des belligdrants.
Les m^mes mots se retrouvent dans la troisifeme r^gle ; ils manqnent dans la seconde.
*' Pourquoi cela T' demandait Lord Cairns dans la discussion sur le traits susdit, qui eut
lieu dans la Chambre de pairs le 12 jirin de Tannde derni^re. II me semble qu'ou
pourrait r^pondre : c'est parce qne dans les cas de la premiere et de la troisidine r^gle
il y a lien a des investigations de personnes et de cboses pour certifier les faits in-
criming, an lien qne la seconde se rapport« ii une s^^rie de faits dvidents, sur Icsquels il
n'y a pas de rechercbes h faire en matiere de credibility.
"Quel est done Pdtnlon,'' ponrstiivait & dire le noble lord, "d'apr^s Icquel yous
pouvez mesnrer la due diligence? Duediligence^ ^ elle senle, ne signifie rien. Ce qni
<«t dire diligence aveo t«l horame et tel gouvernement ne Test plus avec tel autre
faoiDine, tel antre gouvernement pins puissant."
La due diligence se ddtemiine done, & nion avis, ainsi que je Tai d6jk dit, par le rap-
port des choses avec I'obligation imposde par le droit. Mais quelle est la mesuro de fa
rttimm mffiMntet Ce sont Yes principes dn droit des gens et la quality des circonstances
qui nous la donneront. £t ici. pour ne pas rester dans le vague, j'examinerai quelques-
Ques des propositions continues dans Targnment dn conseil de sa Majesty britannique
(Rir le premier dea points indiqu^ par le tribunal dans son arrdt^ du 24 Jnillet. Je ne
64 ARBITRATION AT GENEVA.
lution of the 24tli July. I will be guided by tny own views only, while
rendering full justice to the subtlety of reasoning, and to the wealth of
learning displayed by the illustrious advocate who ha« drawn up this
document, worthy of being placed in the same rank with the equally
remarkable papers which have emanated from the pen of the counsel of
the American Government.
I read, at page 4 of this argument, .that the case of a vessel which
leaves the neutral country unarmed is entirely diflFerent from that of an
armed vessel, sold to a belligerent within neutral territory, which leaves
that territory fully capable of offense and defense, under the control of
the belligerent purchaser ; that departure of the former vessel is no
operation of war ; that she is guilty of no violation of territory, of no
hostile act.
It seems to me that, when a vessel has been built and fitted out for
war, there are strong reasons for believing that it has been purchasetl
for the service of a belligerent, and that it will suddenly go to sea.
There are strong grounds for supposing that, at a short distance ftom
the territorial waters, arms and munitions will be brought to that ves-
sel, fittings made to measure. It is exactly the case, to use an expres-
sion of Sir Koundell Palmer, as reported in his speech in the House of
Commons on the 13th May, 1864, to act upon suspicion^ or upon moral be-
lie/going beyond suspicion. The fraud is too easily perpetrated not to be
presumed upon its face. All that is necessary to complete it is that
arms and engines of war of every kind shouhl be shipped on hoard a
vessel strictly mercantile, and that this vessel should meet the other on
the high se<as, or in neutral waters dift'erent frooi those of the territory
from which she originally started. It is the story of the Prince Alfred,
the Laurel, the Alar, the Agrippina, and the Bahama, of all these com-
binations, which cannot, in my opinion, in any way diminish the respon-
sibility incurred by the Alabama, the Florida, the Shenandoah, the
Georgia, &c.
These evasions by fragments, this complication of different forms of
action with one identical object, should not misleyad the mind of the
me laiHfierai gnider que par mes proprefi vues, tont en remlant pleine et en ti^re justice
ti la tiueBse dcs observations tit ti la richesse de la doctrine de I'lUustre jariscousuUe
nSdacteiir de oette pi^ce digne dV'tre mise sur nne ra^me ligno avec les autres ^gale-
went reinarquables sorties de la plume des conseils du gouveruement amdricain.
Je lis, h. la page 4 de cet argnnieut, que le cfis d'nn navire qui qnttte le pays nentre
sans armemeut est tout k fait difldrent du cas d'uu navire qui, arm^ en guerre, veudu ^
an bcUigdrant snr le territoire neutre et en <^tat d'attaquer et de se d^fendre, quitte ce
lerritoire sous l'antorit<$ de Ta^beteur belligerent, que son depart n'est en ancnne
iik/^ou uue op<^ratiou de guerre ; qu'il n'est conpablo d'aucuue violation du territoire
neutre, ui d^auenu acte bostile.
II me paralt que lorsqu'un vaisseaa a ^t^ construit et pr^par^ pour la guerre, qu'il
y a de fiirtes raisons de croire quMl est achet^S pour le compte d'nn bellig<§raut et qn'U
va soudain prendre la mer. 11 y a bien des motifs de supposer qu'i\ peu de distance des
eaux territoriales on api>ortera4 ce vaisseau des aruies et des munitions, des vetemeuts
h sa taille. Cest bien le cas de se servir d'une phrase de Sir RonndeU Palmer — ^^ioact
upon suspiciorif oi' upon moral belief going beyond suspicion*' — qu'on lit dans son disconrs ^
la Cbambre des communes le 13 Mai 1664. La tVaude est trop facile pour qu'elle ne
doive pas ^tre pii^um^e. 11 suffira de charger sur un vaisseau, strictement do commerce,
des armes et'des engins de guerre de tonte sorte, et que ce vaisseau lejoigne le premier
en haute mer, on dans des eaux neutres dift<6reute8 de celles du territoire primitif d'oil
il est parti, pour que le tour soit fait. C'est i'histoire du Prince Alfred, du Laurel, de
I'Agrippina, et dn Bahama — de tontes ces combinai^ons qui ne poarraient, k mon avis,
dimiuner en rien la responsabilit^ qn'auraient eucourue PAIabama, le Florida^ le She-
nandoah, le Georgia, &c.
Ces Evasions par fragments, cette complication de formes d'action diff^rentes, dans on
int^D^t identique, ne doivent point fourvoyer I'esprit da juge. Un vaisseau tout pr6-
OPINIONS OF COUNT SCL0PI9. 65
judge. A vessel, thoroughly fitted out for war, leaves the shores upon
which it has been built without receiving its armament; a simple mer-
chant-vessel is charged with the transport of its armament; the place
of meeting is fixed, and there the arming of the vessel is completed.
The trick is done. But the judge cannot allow his reason and conscience
to be led astray by such stratagems. On the contrary, the maneuver
will only demonstrate more cleaHy the criminality of both vessels.
I return, then, to what was said by Sir Robert Peel in a memorable
si)eech delivered in the House of Corfimons on the 28th April, 1830. **If
the troops were on board one vessel and their arms in another, did that
make any difference!" and I do not hesitate to say that if the vessel
was fitted out for war and ready to receive her armament, and her arms
were on board another vessel, it made no difference.
I confess that I do not quite understand the true meaning of what I
read at page 6 : " With respect to the three rules,^ (those laid down by
Article VI of the treaty of Washington,) "lY is important to observe that
no one of them pretends that it is the duty of a 7ieutral government to prevent^
under all circumstances whatever, the acts against which they are directed,^
If such is not the duty of a government, the cases in which it is neces-
sary to observe them, and those in which it is not, should have been
specified. The intention of making general the observance of these
rules se^nis to me to be explicit. The solemn words, ^' a neutral govern-
ment is boundy^' and the final chiuse of this article, not less solemn, that
the high contracting parties engage not only to observe these rules as
between themselves, for the future, but also to bring them to the knowl-
edge of other maritime powers, and to invite them, to accede to them,
prove this incontrovertibly.
How, then, can we suppose that there exist circumstances, foreseen
and admitted by the high contracting parties, in which these rules are
not obligatory, unless such circumstances are expressly mentioned!
Undoubtedly it is necessary that a case for the application of these
mies should be made out regularly, and based on sufiiicient grounds;
par^ poor la gaen'e qaitte, sans recevoir son armement, les plages sur lesqiielles il a
^t^ coDstrait ; an vaisscan tout simplement do commerce se charge de transporter
larmenent; le lieu du rendez-vons est fix^, lii se complete Tarmemeut en guerre du
vaisseau. he tour est fait. Mais la raison et la conscience du jnge ue peuveut se laisser
prendre h ces ruses. Bien an contraire, ce manage ne servira qu'^ mieux faire ressortir
la culpability dcs deux vaisseaux.
J'en reyiens done b, ce que disait Sir Bobert Peel dans un memorable dflteours pro-
Donc^ ik la Cbaml>re des communes le 28 avril 1830: "Si les troupes ^taient snr un
vaifuean et les armes snr un autre, cela faisait-il une diif<$rencef " Et je u'hdsite point
&dire, si le vaisseau 6ia,\t appareill<S pour la guerre et prdt h recevoir Parmement, et
les armes ^taient sur un autre navire, cela ne faisait aucune diif<6rence.
J'avone qae Je ne me rends pas bien compte de la vdritable port6e de ee que je lis h
la page 6: "JPour ce gwi concerne ces irok rhglea^^^ (celles 6tablies par I'article VI du
trait6 de Washington,) *' t{ eai important de remarquer qu^aucune duelled ne pretend quHl eoit
du devoir d^un goaremement neutre d'empSckerj dans torn les caSj les actes contre lesquels elles
^ont rSdig^es.^ Si tel n'est pas le devoir d'on gouvernement, on aurait dt sp&itier les
cas oti U ^talt n^cessaire de les observer et ceux oh il ne I'^tait pas. L'int^ntion de
g^o^ralifier robservance de ces regies me parait formelle. Les mots solennels — 'Va neu*
tral government is bound " — et la clause finale de cet article, non moins solennelle, qne
les haotes parties contractantes s'engagent, non-seulement k observer ces regies entre
elles dana I'avenir, mais encore k les porter ^ la counaissan cedes autres puissances marl-
times et & les inviter h y accdder, le prouvent k V^vidence.
Comment done pourrions-nous supposer qn'il existe des circonstances priSvues et
avoa^ea par les hantes parties contractantes oti ces regies n^obligent pas,, sans qu'oa
en ait fait mention expreese f
Certcs, il fant qae le cas d'application de ces regies soit d4termin4 r^guli^Eement et
5 B
66 ARBITRATION AT GENEVA.
bat when this is established, the rales mast have fall and anrestricted
operation.
These rales, according to the manner in which they are lai.d down,
constitnte an obligation based on the general law of nations, and it
woald be to change their natnre, to destroy their effect completely, to
admit, as is contended in the argument of Her Britannic Majesty's coun-
sel, that the measure of due diligence to be exercised must be drawn
from the rules and principles of legislation peculiar to each of the con-
tracting parties ; that is to say, that the generality and breadth of the
rule may be limited by the municipal law.
No, assuredly, such could not have b^en the intention of the high
contracting parties in framing the sixth article. England has declared,
it is true, that she could not assent to the foregoing rules as a statement
of principles of international law which were in force at the time when
the claims mentioned in Article I arose; this is a simple retrospective
question of the sense and interpretation of the law. But from the
moment when England, with the view of strengthening the friendly
relations between the two countries, and of making satisfactory provis-
ion for the future, consents that these rules should be binding for the
past also, she must consider them as provisions of the general law of
nations, conventional, if you please, but superior to any provision of
municipal law. It is not, in my opinion, to strain the nature of interna-
tional law, to require that it should be applied without any admixture
of political interests by the powers who have accepted it. I agree that
we cannot require the execution of what is actually impossible. That
is a case of controlling force; ad impossiUle nemo tenetur. But I refuse
to recognize the political impossibility appealed to in the argument of
Her Britannic Majesty's counsel. Nothing can be more elastic than
these words; it would be to abandon this vital part of the treaty to the
currents of temporary interests, of the accidents of the moment It
would be said: Yes, I consented to lay down the rule, but I have not
the means of carrying it out; so much the worse for the rule.
avec line raison safflsante ; mais, cela pos^, les regies doivent opdrer de plein droit)
et sans aiicune restriction.
Ces r^glet), de la fa^on dont elles sont ^tablies, constituent une obligation fondle but
le droit des p^eiis g<Sn^ral ; et ce serait eu changer la nature, en d<Struire compl^tement
Teft'et que d'adniettre, ainsi que le voudrait Vargtiment du conseil de sa Maje8t<^ britau-
nifiue, que la mesure des due8 diligencea ^ employer, il faut la d^river des regies et
des principes de la legislation propre h chacune des parties contractantes— c'est-^-dire
que la g^n<^ralite et la grandeur de la r^gle pourront 6tre soumises k des Uiuitations
par la loi municipale.
Non, pour stir, telle n'a pu 6tre Tintention des bautes parties contractantes en
r^digeant Particle VI. L'Angleterre a d^clar^, il est vrai, qu'elle n*entendait point ad-
mettre que les regies pr^cit^es eusseut le caractr^e de principes de droit international
en vigueur & l'<5poque oti les r^Sclamations <^nonc6es k rarticle I du traits prirent nais^
Banco; c'est \h, une simple question retrospective dMntelligence et dMuterpr^tation
de droit. Mais du moment que TAngleterre, en yue de raflermir les rapports d'amitie
entre les deux nations et de pourvoir d^une mani^re satisfaisante aus exigences
de I'avculr, consent k ce que ces regies fassent autorit^, mdme pour le passl, elle
doit les consid^rer comwe des di8f)08itions de droit des gens g6n6ral, conventionnel si
Ton veut, mais sup^rieur h toute disposition de droit municipal. Ce nVst pas, h mon
avis, outrer la natnre du droit des gens que d'exiger qu'il soit applique sans melange
dMnter^t politique par les puissances qui Tout accepts. Je suis d'accord qn'on ue
puisse pas demander qn'on execute des choses naturellement imjHfssibles ; c'est le cas de
la force majeure: adimpossibile nemo tenetur. Mais je me refuse 4 re^onnaltre Vmpom-
bUiU politique invoqnee dans Vargument du conseil de sa Migeste britannique. Kien
n'est plus eiastique que ces mots; ce serait livrer Texecution de cette partie vitale da
traite aux conrants des interdta temporaires, des accidents du moment. On dirait :
Qui, j'ai consent! k poser la r5gle, mais les moyens d'y satisfaire me manqnent ; taut
pis pour la r^gle.
OPINIONS OF COUNT SCL0PI8. 67
I add, in conclusion, that there is no ground to fear that the applica-
tion of these rules can go so far as to violate the principles on which
national governments rest. The nature of the engagement does not
reach that point. It is very possible that their application may some-
times embarrass governments in their political conduct; but it will
more often prevent disorders capable of leading to misfortunes which
could not be sufficiently deplored.
The rules of the sixth article of the treaty of Washington are des-
tined to become principles of universal law for the maintenance of neu-
trality- The very text of the treaty says so, and Mr. Gladstone and
Lord Granville have always, and with reason, insisted on this prospect-
ive benefit to civilization. In order to realize it, the several govern-
ments must take measures to' obtain fitting powers for the execution of
the law. As regards the past, there have been great discrepancies on
this point in the legislation of different nations. The United States,
with their district attorneys, their marshals, and organized police offi-
cers, were better assisted than England was, with its customs and
excise officers only. I do not doubt that these views will be received,
if the treaty of Washington is to be carried out in earnest, and it would
be a great misfortune if it were not.
1 do not think it is absolutely necessary for our purpose to discuss
the observations which have been made respecting different quotations
from the work of Sir Robert Phillimore, nor to dwell on the compara-
tive study of the legislations of America and England in matters of neu-
trality. This may be more useful when framing regulations to be made
in pursuance of Article VI of the treaty.
It is to be hoped that this process of rectifying or supplementing the
precautions to be taken in order to insure the execution of the treaty
to its full extent will not be delayed.
We have witnessed the anxiety of England to modify her neutrality
laws on the breaking out of the war in 1870 between France and Ger-
many.
J'sjonte, pour en finir, qn'il n'y a pas h craindre que Tapplication de ces regies
pnisse arriver aa point de violer les principes ear leequels reposent lea goavernements
nationaux. La nature de rengagement ne va pas jusqae 1^. II est tr^s-possible que
cet'te application g^ne quel qnefois les goavernements daus lenr conduite politique, mats
eile empgcbera plus soavent des d^sorares capables de produire des malhears qa'on ue
saaratt assez d^plorer.
Les regies de Particle YI du traits de Washington sont destinies h devenir des
principes de droit commnn pour la garantie de la neutrality. Le texte m^me le dit, et
M. Gladstone et Lord Granville ont toujours, et avec raison, insists sur cette provision
d'nn bienfait acquis ^ la civilisation. Pour que cela se realise, il faudra que les
diffi^Tcnts gonvernements prennent des mesures a&u d'avoir les moyeus convenables
pour ex^uter la loi. Pour le passd, il y avait de grandes Yari^t<^ en cette mati^re
dans la legislation des diff^rents peuples. Les £tats-Unis, avec leurs attorneys de dis-
et oe serait un grand malheur s'il ne I'iStait pas.
Je pense qQ'iTn'est point absolument u^cessaire pour notre 6tude de discnter les ob-
servations qn'on a faites tonchant diffiSrent-es citations du livre de Sir Robert Phillimore,
ni de nous arrSter sur T^tude des legislations compar^es d'Am€rique et d' Angle terre en
iait de neutrality. Cela pourra mieux servir quand on travaillera aux r^glements ^
faire d^pendamment de Particle YI du traits.
II est k espdrer que cette rectification, ou ce supplement de precautions h prendre
poor assurer I'execution du traite dans toute sou etendue, ne se fera point attendre.
Nous avons yu la sollicitnde de PAngleterre k modifier ses lois sur la neutralite k
rouTerture de la gnerre, en 1870, entre la France et PAllemagne,
^
68 ARBITRATION AT GENEVA.
Why should we not hope for equal anxiety now to conform to the let-
ter and spirit of the treaty of Washington f
1 come to the application of the considerations I have put forward.
It results from this, according to my views, that the English govern-
ment found itself, during the first years of the war of secession, in the
midst of circumstances which could not but have an influence, if not
directly upon itself, at least upon a part of the population subject to the
British Crown. No government is safe against certain waves of pub-
lic opinion which it cannot master at its will. I am far from thinking
that the animus of the English government was hostile to the Federal
Government during the war.
Yet there were grave dangers for the United States in Great Britain
and her colonies which there were no direct means for averting. Eng-
land, therefore, should have fultilled her duties as a neutral by the ex-
ercise of a diligence equal to the gravity of the danger. I need
only here repeat a passage from a report of the law-officers of
Her Britannic Majesty, given in reply to a request of Lord Eus-
sell, on the 12th December, 1863. Speaking on the subject of the
Georgia, the law-officers observe that the facts resulting from the depo-
sitions received furnish additional grounds to those already existing for
strong remonstrance to the confederate government on account of the sys-
tematic violation of British neutrality by their agents in British territory.
(British Appendix, vol. i, p. 440.)
It cannot be denied that there were moments when its watchfulness
seemed to fail, and when feebleness in certain branches of the public
service resulted in great detriment to the United States. The con-
sequences of such feebleness can be no other than a reparation for the
damages suffered. Earl Enssell writes to Lord Lyons, in a letter of the
27th March, 1868, that " he had said to Mr. Adams that the cabinet
were of opinion that the law was sufficient, but that legal evidence could
not always be procured. That the British government had done every-
thing in its power to execute the law; but that he aduiitted that the
Pourqnoi ne pas esp^rer qn'on sera empress^ aujonrd'hni h se conformer k la lettre et*
h I'eKprit des stipulations de Washington f
J'eu viens ^rapplication des considdrations qne j'ai faites. II r^iilte k mea yenx
que le gonvernement anglais s'est trouv^, pendant les premieres ann^es de la guerre
de la secession, an roiliea de circonstances qui n'ont pu qu'avoir nne influence, si ce
n'est directment sur lui, du moins sur uue partie des populations soumises k la couronne
d'Angleterre. Nul gouvernement n'est k rabri de certaines secousses de Popiuion pa-
blique, qu'il n'est pas libre de maltriser k son gr6. Je suis loin de penser q\fe Vanimus
du gouvernement anglais ait ^t^ hostile pendant cette guerre au Qouvernemeat f6-
d^ral.
Cependant, il existait de graves dangers en Angleterre et dans ses colonies poor les
£tat8-UniB, qui n'avaient aucun moyen direct de les conjarer. II faillait done que
FAnglet^rre mlt, k garder les devoirs'de la neutrality, une diligence correspondante k
la gravity de ces dangers. II me suffit de rappeler ici un passa|;e •d'une consultation
des couseillers Mgaux de sa M^jest^ britannique, <Smise, sur Tinvitation de Lord Rus-
sell, le 12 d^cembre 1863. Parlant au sujet du Georgia, ces couseillers observaient
que les faits r^nltant de depositions reyues **foumi8saieni dea raiaons dajouirr d celles qui
exiataient devour adreBser de vives remoutrances au gouvernement oonf^ri^ h propoa de la
violation eyetematique de la neutrality anglaieey oommiee par sea agenia aur le territoire 6riteii-
nique." (Appendice britannique, vol. i, p. 440.)
On ne saurait nier toutefois qu'il y eut des moments oil la riguenr de surveillance
partlt faiblir. De Ik des d^faillances dans certaines parties du service public, qui ont
toum^ au grand d6savantage des £tat8-Unis, et la consequence de ces defaillances ne
pent dtre autre qu'une reparation de domniages soufferts. Le Comte Russell ^crit k
Lord Lyons, dans une lettre du 27 mars 1863, qu'il ^'avait dit k M. Adams que le cabi-
net etait d'opinion que la loi sufflsait, mais qu'on n'avait pas pu tot^ours apporter des
preuves l^gales; que le gouvernement de la Grande-Bretague avait fait tout ce qui
etait en son pouvoir pour ezecuter la loi; mais qu'il reconnaiBsait que les oas de
OPINIONS OF COUNT SCLOPIS. 69
cases of the Alabama and Oreto were a scandal^ and in some degree a
reproach^ to the Britsh laws."
Subsequently, at the very moment when he made the motion praying
the Queen to refuse to ratify the treaty of Washington, Earl Eusseil
candidly admitted that the Queen's proclamation of May 13, 1861, en-
joining neutrality in the unfortunate civil war in North America, had
several times been practically set at naught on British territory by the
acts of parties.
The obstacles which, at the moment when the letter which I have just
quoted was written, fettered the action of the British government, no
longer exist, thanks to the liberal principles imposed by Article VI of
the treaty of Washington j but the consequences of the acts which Earl
Enssell so candidly and so energetically condemned, still exist; and it is
to the reparation of these damages in a just measure, and based always on
sufficient grounds, that the decisions of the tribunal of arbitration should
tend.
I will dilate no further on this point. As to the disposition which
should prevail to make provision for the future, I need only cite the
British foreign-enlistment aet, passed on the 9th August, 1870. This
act shows what progress has been made in the means for preserving
neutrality.
The three rules laid down in Article YI of the treaty appeared to the
English ministry less embarrassing for the government than the act I
have just alluded to. " There is not one of these rules," said Lord Gran-
ville in the House of Lords on the 12th June, 1871, " which is not com-
pletely covered by that act, and it even goes further than they do." The
retrospective character of these rules forms their especial character,
which governs the whole question submitted to the decision of the
arbitrators.
n.— VESSELS WHICH HAVE EECEIVED COMMISSIONS.
If we consult the most esteemed authors on public international law,
TAlabama et de TOreto avaient ^t^ ua scandale et en quelque degri un reproche aax lois
anglaises/'
Plus tard, au moment m^me oh il faisait la motion de supplier la Reine de refuser la
ratification da traits de Washington, le Comte Kassell avonait loyalement que la
proclamation de la Reine du 13 mai 1861, enjoignant la neutrality dans la malheurense
guerre civile de TAmdrique du Nord, avait ^t^ plusieurs fois pratiquement r^duite k
neant sur le territoire anglais par le fait des partis.
Lea obstacles quf, au moment oil la lettre que je viens de citer fut 6crite, entravaient
Taction du gouvernement britannique n^exiatent plus, gr&ce aux principes lib^raux
impost par Tarticle VI du traits de Washington ; mais les consequences des faits, que
le Oomte Russell r^prouvait si loyalement et si 6nergiqnemeut, subsistent encore, et
c*est & r^parer ces doni mages dans une juste mesure, et toujours avec Tappui d'une raison
suffisante, que doivcut tendre les decisions du tribunal d'arbitrage.
Je n'irai pas plus loin sur ce terrain. Quant h I'esprit de pr^voyance qui doit pr^va-
loir ^Tavenir, 11 snfBt que je cite le foreign-enliatment act de la Grande-Bretagne, vot^
le 9 aodt 1870. Get acte nous montre quels progr^s on a fait quant aux moyens do
maintenir la neutrality.
Les trois regies pos^s ^ Particle VI du traits ont para au minist^re anglais moins
genaotes poor le gouvernement que I'acte que je viens de citer. *^ II n'y a pas une senle
de ces regies," disait Lord Granville k la Chauibre des lords le 12 juin 1871, *' qui ne
aoit comprise dans cet acte, qui va mdme beaucoup au-del^.^' La retroactivity de ces
regies en forme le caract^re special, qui domine toute la mati^re soumise au jugement
des arbitrea.
II. — VAISSEAUX DE VENUS N A VIRES COMMISSIONERS.
Si noDs confiultoas les auteurs les plus accreditds de droit public international, et par-
70 ARBITRATION AT GENEVA.
and especially two writers of great weight, whose authority will be denied
EBbct of commi.. Deithcr by America nor by England, namely. Story and
•"*"* Phillimore, we find that the privilege, usually accorded to
ships of war, of being considered as a portion of the state whose flag
they carry, and being thus exempt from all other jurisdiction, was in its
origin a privilege only granted by courtesy.* As this privilege is only
derived from the usage of nations, it can be canceled at any moment
without cause for offense being given. '
The opinion of Story, delivered in the case of the Exchange, and
quoted by Phillimore, appears to me decisive :
''It may, therefore/' he says, "be justly laid down as a general proposition, that
aU persons and property within the territorial Jurisdiction of a sovereign are amenable
to the jurisdiction of himself or his courts : and that the exceptions to this rule are
such only as, by common usage and public policy, have been allowed, in order to pre-
serve the peace and harmony of nations, and to regulate their intercourse in a manner
best suited to their dignity and right«. It would, indeed, be strange, if a license, im-
plied by law from the general practice of nations for the purposes of peace should be
construed as a license to do wrong to the nation itself, and justify the breach of all
those obligations which good faith and friendship, by the same implication, impose
upon those who seek an asylum in our port8.''t
Taking these general principled, and above all the eternal rules of
good sense and the dictates of good faith, as our point of departure, is
it possible to admit that a vessel, which has been fraudulently built ou
the territory of 2b sovereign, in open contravention of the duties of neu-
trality which that sovereign is bound to fulfill, and with the object of
privateeriiig on behalf of one of the belligerents, can, by the simple act
of such belligerent, with a view to escape disasters, be transferred
into a commissioned vessel, and thus, with impunity, defy that same
ticuli^rement denx ^rivains d'un grand mdrite, dont raii|oriU$ ne sera d6savon6e, ni
par PAm<$rique, ni par PAngleterre, tela que Story et Phillimore, nous tronvous que le
privilege, g^iidralement accord^ anx bAtiments de guerre, d'etre consid6r^s comme nne
fractiou de I'dtat dont ils portent le pavilion, et par 1^ exempts de toute autre juridic-
tion, n^a fM originairemeut qu'une concession faite par courtoisie. Comme cette con-
cession ne derive que de Tusage des nations, elle pent 6tre r^^voqu^e h quelque ^poqne
que ce soit, sans que cela pnisse dtre considdr^ comme une offense.
L'opinion de Story, ^nonc^e dans le oas de TExchange, et rapport^e par Phillimore,
me paralt decisive :
"On pent," dit^il, "6tablir avec justice, comme proposition g^n^Sralo, que toute lyer-
sonne et toute propri(^t<S, dans la juridiction territoriale d'un souverain, sont soamises
& la juridiction de ce souverain ou de ses cours de justice; et quMl n'y a d'exceptiona
h cette r^gle que celles uniqueuient qui sont admises par Tusage conimun et par la
Solitique publique, dans le but de maintenir la paix et Pharmonie entre les nations, et
e r^gler leurs rapports de la fa^on la mieux d*accord avec leur dignity et leurs tlroits.
U sefait, en v6rit^, fort <^trange qu'une authorisation, que le droit a tacitement dMiiite
de la pratique g^ndrale des nations, dans des vues favorables h la paix, pftt dtre inter-
pr^t^e comme une autorisation de faire du mal k ces ni6mes nations, et comme justifi-
cation de Piufraction de ces devoirs, que la bonne foi et Tamiti^^, provenaut de la m6mo
source, imposent it ceux qui cherchent un asile dans nos ports."
En partaut de la g6n6ralit^ de ces principes, et surtont des r^gle8 de Tdternel bon
sens, et des inspirations de la bonne foi, est-il possible d'atlmettre qu^in navire, qui a
6X4 frauduleusement construit sur le territoire cVun souverain, en pleine contravention
aux devoirs de neutrality que ce Houverain est tenu do remplir, et dans le but de se
livrer h, la course dans I'int^rAt d'un des bellig^rants, pnisse, par le seul fait de ce bel-
lig^rant, en vue de se soustraire h des chances malheurcnses, ^tre transform^ en vaiweau
comniissionn^S, et braver par lii impuu^ment cette m^me souveraiuet^ quUl avait h son
* Phillimore, " Commentaries upon International Law,'' vol. i, p. 399, et Beq. Second
edition, 1871.
t Ibid, p. 401. Lampredi does not admit that a vessel on the high seas can he
considered by other nations to be a part of the territory of the state whose flag she
carries; he recognize* this assumption of territoriality only in respect to the mti^rnal
management of the ship and the civil and political relations of those on board of her.
OPINIONS OF COUNT SCLOPIS. 71
sovereignty against which she had at the ontset so gravely offended?
Assuredly not; these changes to the eye, like the shifting of a scene,
these transformations, effected with equal audacity and ease, cannot be
taken serioasly. The contravention of which the ship was guilty at the
commencement of her career, with respect to the sovereign of the place
where she was built, is not effaced by the operation of an indecent
stratagem. All the written maxims of reason revolt against such
trickery : dolus neniini patrodnari debet. We must look to the bottom
of the matter, and mete out full justice to the fraud ; plus vaUt quod
agitur quam quod simulate coneipitur. The guilt inherent to the vessel
will not be purged even when she has received a commission, a com-
mander, and a flag from the power who can only profit by the fraud in
flagrant violation of all the rights of neutrality. ^
The weighty authority of Story, in the case of the Santissima Trini-
dad, is generally quoted with regard to the question now raised before
us^ (and I have myself quoted him.) But I observe that Story's doc-
trine, on the respect due to the commission given to a ship by a govern-
ment, is only a general thesis on which everybody agrees; it does not
directly touch on the question of the original guilt incurred by a vessel
before her commissioning, and which cannot be blotted out without a
disturbance of aP the principles which govern the duties of neutrality.
After all, even if precedents could be quoted contrary to the ojunion
which I maintain, I should reply that the letter and spirit of the three
rules l«iid down in the sixth article of the treaty of Washington do not
allow us to follow the old ruling.
It must be steadily borne in mind that it is a new law, full of equity
and foresight, which we are now to follow.
It is true that, according to generally-accepted ideas, a sovereign who
is no longer willing to grant the privilege of exterritoriality to the com-
missioned ships of other powers, must previously give notice to that
effect, so that foreign navies, forewarned, may take their precautions in
d^nt si gravement offeus^et Non, on v^rit^: ces cbangements k vne, oomme bHI
s'agiasait des d6cor8 d^in tb^&tre, ces transformations opSr^es avoc aiitant d'audace
que de facility, ne pen vent point dtre pris au s^rieux. La contravention dont co
uavire 6*ctuit rondn coupablo au commencement de sa carri^re, envers le souverain du
lieu oil il a 4t6 constmit, ne s'efface point par Veflfet d^ine nise ind<^cente. Toutes les
maximes de la raison ^crite s'^l^vent centre de sembables superclieries ; dolus nemini
patrodnari debet. 11 faut regarder le fond de la chose et faire bonuo juHtice de la simu-
lation ; plus valet quod agitur qitam quod simulate concipitur, Le vice inbdrent au vais-
sean ne disparattra point quaud mdme il aura regu nne patente, un commandant et un
pavilion de la puissance qui ne tend qu'^ profiter de la fraude, en contradiction ouverte
k toua les droits de neutrality.
On cite ordinairement, h propos de la question qu'on a sonlevde devant nous,
TimpoAante antorit^S de Story (que j'ai moi-ui{^me invoqude) dans le cas de la
Santisima Trinidad. Mais .f observe que la doctrine do Story, sur le respect dd i\ la
commission dont un gouvernement a revfetu un navire, n'est qu'une th^so g<5n<^rale, sur
laqaelle tout le monde est d'accord; elle ne tonche pas directenient h la question du
vice d*origine contracts par un navire avaut quMl soit conuuissionni^; vice d'origine
qui ne pent s'efifacer sans troubler tous les priucipes qui gouvement les devoirs do la
neutrality.
Apr^ tout, qnand ra6me on pourrait citer des pr^cddents contraires d, Vopinion que
je Boutiens. je rdpondrai que la lettre et Pesprit des trois r^gle8 po.sdes ii Tarticle
VI do trait^ de Washington ne nous permettent plus de suivre Paucienqe juris-
pindence.
11 faut se mettre bien dans I'esprit que c'est un droit uouvean, tout imbu d'^uit^ et
depr^voyance, que nous devons suivre maintenant.
n est vrai que, selon les id^es gdndralement re^nes, un souverain qui ne vent plus
accorder le privilege d'exterritorialitd anx navires commission n<^s des an tres puissances,
doit en donner pr&lablement avis, afin que le-s maiines <5traug^res, averti a prcnnent
leoiBsiiret^ k cet dgard. Mais cela ne veut x>as dire quHl ue puisse y avoir a'exception
72 ARBITRATION AT GENEVA.
this respect. But this does not mean that there may not be exceptions
arising from a certain special train of circumstances, and not from the
simple caprice of the sovereign and his government. Now, it is on the
nature of these special circumstances that the first rule, laid down in
Article VI of the treaty of Washington, specifically rests. The operation
of this rule would be illusory if it could not be applied to vessels subse-
quently commissioned. The object in view is to prevent the construc-
tion, arming, and equipping of a vessel, and to prevent her departure
when there is sufficient ground for believing that she is intended to
carry on war on behalf of one of the belligerents; and when probability
has become certainty, shall not the rule be applicable to the direct and
palpable consequenc^es which it originally was intended to prevent?
Can this act, in vindication of a. right which has at the first been obvi-
ously violated, be looked upon as a violation of public good faith and
of the law of nations in regard to one of the belligerents! I can see no
violation of public good faith where there is only a flagrant abuse, a
manifest contravention of the principles of neutral duties sanctioned by
the foregoing rule.
The honorable attorney -general, in the memorable speech which he
made in the House of Commons on the 13th of May, 1864, in reply to Mr.
Baring, formally declared " that he had not the least doubt that Eng-
land had the right, if she thought fit, to exclude from her ports any
particular ship, or class of ships, if she considered that they had violated
her neutrality, but that such power is simply discretionary, and should
be exercised with a due regard to all the circumstances of the case.''
(United States Documents, vol. v, p. 583.) Why was not, then, this
right exercised at least with respect to the vessels which had flagrantly
violated the duties of neutrality f
I will not follow the argument of the United States in the distinction
it seeks to draw between public ships of recognized and sovereign na-
tions and the ships belonging to a belligerent power whose sovereignty
is not recognized. The status of belligerents having been accorded to
ddrivant d'nn certain ordre de faits Bpdciaux, et non da simple caprice du soaveraia et
de Bon gonverncment. Or, c'est sur la nature de ces faits Bp6ciaux que la premiere
^^gle pos6o h I'article VI du traits de Washington s^appuio precis6meut. La
disposition de cette r^gle serait parfaitenient illusoire si on ue I'appliqnait pas ans
cas de vaisseaux post^rieurement commisbionn^s. On veut emp6eher la construction,
I'armenient et I'dquipement d'un vaisseau, en emp^cher la sortie quand il y a raisou
Huffisante de croire quo ce vaisseau est destin^ h faire la guerre au profit d'un des
bellig^rants ; et quaud les probabilitds auront fait lien h la certitude, la r^glo ne sera
plus applicable dans les consequences directes et palpables qu'eUe voulait d'abord
empdcher. Cot acte de revendication d*un droit, qui a 6t6 dvidcmment viol6 an
commencement, pourrait-il 6tre envisagd comme uue violation de la foi publique, ainsi
que du droit des gens, envers Tun des belligdrants ? Je ne saurais voir violation de la
foi pnblique ]h, oti il n'y a qu'un abus flagranti nne contradiction manifeste anx
principes des devoirs du neutre sanctiounds par la r^gle prdcit^e.
L'honorable attorney-general, dans le memorable disQOurs qu'il a prononc^ dans
la stance de la Chambre des communes le 13 mai 1864, en r^ponso ^ eelui de M.
Baring, a formellenient ddclard "n'y avoir le moiudre doute que I'Angleterre a le droit
d'exclure de ses ports, si elle le croit convenable, tont vaisseau ou toute classe de
vaisseaux, si elle croit quQ ces vaisseaux ont viol6 la neutrality ; mais que ce droit est
tont simplement discrdtionnaire et doit s'exercer eu 6gard h, toutes les circonstancea da
cas." (Documents produits par les ;Etats-Uuis, vol. v, p. 583.^ Pourquoi done n'a-t-on
pas au tnoins U86 de ce droit k I'^^gard des vaisseaux qui 6taient en contravention
flagrante aux devoirs de la nentrali^f
Je ne suivrai pas le plaidoyer des ^tats-Unis dans la distinctioti qu'il propose
entre les navires publics des nations reconnues et souveraines d'avec les navires
appartenant s!t une puissance bellig^rante qui n'est pas une souverainet^ reconnae.
L'<5tat do beUig^rant ayant 6t6 reconnn des doux c6t6s des populations am^ricaines, il
nVst point u<Sces8aire d'insister sur cette question; je dirai avec le juge am<Sricain
OPINIONS OF COUNT SCLOPIS. 73
both parties in America, it is not necessary to dwell on this question.
I will say, with the American Judge Qrier, " foreign nations recognize
that there is war by a proclamation of neutrality."*
The fact that a vessel, after having been commissioned, has been re-
ceived as a ship of war in the ports of different powers before her en-
trance into the ports of the power whose neutrality she had originally
violated, should not, in my opinion, influence the recognition of the
character of such vessel. Where the vessel had no liability to answer
for, it was natural that she should be admitted as a ship of war ; but
circamstances entirely change when the vessel enters the territorial
waters of the sovereign towards whom she is guilty, of the sovereign
whom she has compromised as regards the other belligerent. Here her
?ailty character cannot be overlooked ; she may be seized and con-
demned.
I think that it is for the interest of all maritime nations that they
should hold to the principles which have just been propounded. The
namber of vessels fraudulently built on neutral territory, with the in-
tention of privateering on behalf of belligerents, will decrease in pro-
portion as increased severity is shown towards them, even when they
pre^nt themselves under the protection of false pretensions to which
they are not entitled.
The powers which signed the treaty of Washington express, in this
same Article VI, the desire and hope that the three rules which they
have there laid down will be adopted by the other maritime powers.
It must then be inferred that the signing powers considered these rules
as clear, precise, and applicable to the various cases which are therein
contemplated. If, on the contrary, it is to be supposed that the inten-
tion of the coutriicting parties at Washington was to admit explana-
tions and reservations of these same rules in the sense ** of not largely
transcending the views of international maritime law and policy which
would be likely to commend themselves to the general interests and in-
telligence of that portion of mankind," t the advantage of the example
Grier: ^' Les nations ^trang^res reconnaissent qu'il y a gnerre par nne proclamation de
D«atraliU5."
La circonstance qn'nn vaisseau, devonn commissionn^, ait 6t6 re9U comme vaisseau
lie gueiTo dauB des ports des diffSrentes puissances avant que d'eutrer dans des ports
dn la pniasBDce dont il avaifc d'abord violiS la neutrality, ne roe parult point devoir
ioflaer snr la reconnaissance dn caract^re de ce navire. Li\ oh ce vaisseau n'avait
aocnne comptabilit^- k r^^gler, c^^tait naturel qn'il fClt admis comme britinient de
znene; mais la chose change totalement d^s que ce vaissoau entre dans les eanx
territoriales du souverain en vers leqnel il s'est rendu coupablo, du sonverain qu'il a
compromiB vis-^-vis de Tautre bellig<Srant. Ici on ne pent lui faire remise de sa
penaJit6; il pent Atre saisi et condamn^.
Je pense qu^il est de l'int€r6t de toutes les nations maritimes de s'en tenir anx prin-
cipes que Ton vient d'^uoncer. U y aura d'autant moins de constructions frauduleuses
snr un territorie nentre de navires destines b, la course en faveur do bclligdrants qn41
y anra plus de s^v^rite envers ceux-ci, lors mdme quails se pr6senteraient sous de pr^
tendoes garanties, qu'ils ne nidritent pas.
Les paissances signataires du trait<§ du Washington cxprtment, dans ce mdme arti-
cle VI, 1© ddsir ©t I'espoir que les trois regies qu'elles y ont <$tablies soient adoptdes
par les autres pnissances maritimes. II faut en conclnre que les puisscinces signataires
ont eovisag^ ces rt^gles comme claires, precises, et applicables aux difi'<6rents cas qui y
K»Dt eontempl69. S'il fallait supposer, au contraire, que I'intention des parties contrac-
tantes h Washington <^tait d^admettre des explications et des reserves snr ces m^mes
regies dans le sens '* de ne pas ddpasser de beaucoup les id^es de loi et politique
oaritime internationale qui avaient le plus de chances de se faire agrder des intdr^ts
*In the recent case of the Hiawatha, British prize, captured by the United States at
the commencement of the civil war.
t Argument of Her Britannic Majesty's counsel on the points mentioned in the reso-
lution of tho arbritrators of July :{0, i872, p. 70.
74 ARBITRATION AT GENEVA,
given would be entirely lost. The uncertainty of its interpretation
would always endanger the stability of the rule.
ni. — SUPPLIES OP COAL.
«
I can only treat the question of the supply and shipment of coal as
connected with the use of a base of naval operations
Supplies o directed against one of the belligerents, or as a flagraot
case of contraband of war.
I will not say that the simple fact of having allowed a greater amoant
of coal than was necessary to enable a vessel to reach the nearest port
of its country constitutes in itself a sufficient grievance to call for an
indemnity. As the Lord Chancellor of England said on the 12th of
June, 1871, in the House of Lords, England and the United States
equally hold the principle that it is no violation of international law to
furnish arms to a belligerent. But if an excessive supply of coal is
connected with other circumstances which show that it was used as a
veritable res hostiliSj* then there is an infringement of the second rule
of Article VI of the treaty. It is in this sense also that the same Lonl
Chancellor, in the speech before mentioned, explained the intention of
the latter part of the said rule. Thus, when I see, for example, the
Florida and the Shenandoah choose for their field of action one, the
stretch of sea between the Bahama Archipelago and Bermuda, to
cruise there at its ease, and the other, Melbourne and Hobsou's Bay,
for the purposes, immediately carried out, of going to the Arctic seas,
there to attack the whaling- vessels, I cannot but regard the supplies
g<$n<^ranx et de cette partie d(^ Fhamanit^/' I'avantage de l*exemp1e donn^ serait
enti^relIleDt perdu. L'interpr6tation fiottaute eiupieterait toujours sur la fermet^ de
la rdgle.
n.— AFPROVISIONNEMRNT DE CHARBON.
Qnant Ik la question de rapprovisionnement et da cbargement de obarbon, je De
Banrais la traitor one soas le point de vae d'un cas conuoxe avec Tusa^e d'nne ba^e
d'opdrations navales dirig^^es coutre Tan dea beUig^rauts, on d'une cas flagrant de
contrebaiide de guerre.
Je ne dirai pas qne le simple fait d'avoir allou6 nne qnantit^ de cbarbon pins fort«
que coUe ndcessaire anx vaisseaiix pour regaguer le port de leur pays le ]uu8 Toisiu
constitue h, lui senl un grief suftisant pour donuer lien k nne iudeiuiiit^. Ainni qne le
disait le cbancelier d'Angleterre le 12Jani 1671,^ la Cbauibre des lonls, I'Angleterre
et les ]6tats-Unis se tienueut <Sgalement attaches an principe pratiqneqn'il n*y a p.is
violation du droit des gens en fonrnissant des ariues anx belligerants. Mais si cet
exc<^daiit de proportion dans rapprovisionnement de cbarbon vientse joindre i d^antres
circonHtances qui marquent qu'on s*en est servi comme d^une vdritable ro fco*fi/Wf
alors il y a infraction & la denxi^me r^gle de Tarticle VI du traitd. C^»t dans ce
sens auKsi qne le niAme lord cbancelier expliqnatt dans le disconrs pr6cit6 la port^e de
la deriii^re partie de la dite r^gle. Ainsi, lorsque je vois, par exemplo, le Florida et le
Slienandoab eboisir pour lenr cbamp d^action, I'un, Tespace de nier qui est entre
rarcbip<4 des lies Babamas et les Bcrmndes, pour y croiser ii son aise ; Tautre,^ Mf^lbonroe
et la baie de Hobson, avec le dessein, ex^cut^ iram6diatemont apr^, de se rendre (lacs
les mers Arctiques, pour y attaquer les baleiniers^ je ne puis m'emp^cber de considerer
•The learned Larapredi, speaking of contraband of war, says: "Two concurrent
circumstances are necessary in order that these articles should assume the character
of contraband:
" 1. They mnst have actually become the property of the enemy, or, at least, be dis-
posed in manner that they may so become.
" 2. They must haxe been sent out of the territory subject to the neutral and pacitic
sovereign. They then become ren hostilin; they asanme the character of contra ban>l
goods, &c." (G. M. Lampredi, " Of the Commerce of Neutral Nations Lu time of War/')
OPINIONS OF COUNT SCLOPIS. 75
of coal in quantitiesr sufficient for such purposes as infringements of the
second rnle of the sixth article.
IV. — THE ALABAMA.
The vessel which has had the nnenviable privilege of giving its name
to the mass of claims advanced by the Government of the
United States against the government of Her Britannic Alabama.
Majesty was the object of anxions care on the part of the representa-
tives of the United States from the time when she was in course of con-
straction.
The contract for her construction had been concluded between Cap-
tain Bollock, a known agent of the confederates, on the one part, and
Messrs. Laird on the other. She was evidently a vessel of war. She
was of about 900 tons, was 230 feet in length, 32 in breadth, and 20 in
depth ; when provisioned and supplied with the coal necessary for a
cruise she drew 16 feet of water. Her engines were of 300 horse- power ;
she carried eight guns, six broadside and two on pilots, one forward,
the other abaft the main-raast. On the 15th of May, 1862, the vessel
was launched under the name of the 290, her building number in the
yard. Formal representations were addressed to Lord Bussell by Mr.
Adams on the 23d of June, in which he made an express demand
that the projected expedition should be stopped, or else that it should
be established that the purpose of the vessel was not hostile to the
people of the United States. Mr. Adams based his statements on pub-
lic report, on special presumptions, and on a letter intercepted by the
Government of the United States.
Lord Eussell referred the matter to the proper department of Her
Britannic Majesty's government. A report was received from the cus-
toms officers in which it was said that the builders of the vessel did not
attempt to disguise what was, in fact, apparent, namely, that she was
intended for a ship of war. The British government promised to keep
special watch upon her. The system adopted by the customs officials
Im cbar{;ement« de cbarbon en quantity analogue an besoin de ces expeditions comme
de8 InfracUonB k la denxi^me r^gle de I'article VI.
l'alabama.
Le vaifeean qui a en le triste privildge de donner son nom h la masse de reclamations
adress^es par le Oonvemement des liltats-Unis an gouvernement de sa Mnjettte britan-
nique, a 6ti Tobjet de vives sollicitudes de la part des repr^sentants des £tat8-Uuis d^
le teiu()ii oh il ^tait ep construotion.
Le contrat poor cette construction avait 4t6 concln par le capitaine Bullock, agent
ccmna des con(6i\6r6Sj d'une part, et par MM Laird de I'antre. C'6tait dvidemment nn
vaissean de guerre. II 6U\\t d'environ 900 tonnes, avait 230 pieds de long, 32 de large,
2iJ de profondenr ; qnaud il etait approvisionne et^tait pourvu de charlion nece«saire
SI nne croisi^re, son tirant etait de 15 pieds. Sa macbine etait de la force de 300 cbe-
vaux; il etait arm^ de buit canons, six snrles c6tes et deux ^ pivot places, Tun il^Tavant,
Tautro ^ ^a^ri^re dn grand mdt. Le 15 mai 1862, le vaisseau fut lance sous le nom de
'*21^J,*' cbiffre de constmction an cbantier. Des reclamations formelles furent portees
a Lord Busaell par M. Adams le 23 jnin ; il y etait expressement fait denmnder d'ar-
Tvti'T Texpedition projetee, on bieu d'etablir que le vaisseau n'avait pas dMntontions
ho8*il«i contre le penple dee fitats-Uuis. M. Adams se fondait sur la voix pnblique, sur
l^s pr^mptions speciales, et sur nne lettre interceptee par le Qouvernement des £tats-
Unis.
Lord Bussell remit PafTaire an departement competent du gonvernement de sa
Majcste britauniqne. H s'ensnivit an rapport des officiers des douanes, dans bquol il
e^t (lit que les constrncteurs du navire nVssayaieut pas de dissimuler un fait, trfes evi-
dent, savoir, qu^l etait destine h devenir uu vaismeau de guerre. Une surveillance spe-
cials fat promise de la part dn gonvernement britauniqne. Le syst^me adopte par les
76 ARBITRATION AT GENEVA.
daring the whole coarse of Mr. Adams's complaints was to take no
initiative, and to require always a formal requisition on the part of the
United States, admissible before an English court of law. An eminent
English Counsel, Sir K. P. Collier, consulted by the American consal
at Liverpool, did not hesitate to declare that the vessel in question
might be seized by the principal officer of customs at that port, and he
advised the said consul to apply to the Secretary of State for Foreign
Affairs to ratify the' seizure if made, or to direct that it should be made.
Five affidavits were produced, which Mr. Collier, in the first instance,
and the government afterwards, recognized as furnishing conclusive
evidence that the character and destination of the vessel were in direct
contravention of the foreign-enlistment act. If the act is not enforced
on this occasioii, added Mr. Collier, it is little better than a dead letter.
The American consul at Liverpool forwarded this opinion to the ander
secretary of state for foreign affairs, and to the secretary to the board
of customs. The under secretary of state took no immediate steps upon
this communication, and the secretary to the board of customs had to
await the orders of the lords of the treasury, which did not reach him
until the 28th of July; the same documents were also communicated to
Lord Eussell. On the same day, the 28th, the law-officers of the Crown
gave their opinion that the vessel should be seized; orders to that effect
were consequently given on the 29th by the British government. The
circumstance of the illness of the Queen's advocate has been advanced
to justify the length of time which elapsed between the presentation of
the documents to the minister for foreign affiairs and the delivery of
the opinion to the law-officers of the Crown. It is difficult to a<5cept this
excuse when we bear in mind that there were other counsel to replace
this officer, and that any delay was perilous. Under these circum-
stances, the vessel had ample time to escape. I will not enter into the
details of the precautions taken by the commander of the Alabama
to elude the not over strict vigilance of the customs officers, nor into
the calculations of the distances, longer, or shdrter, which had to be
traversed, in order to arrive in time to arrest the vessel on her touching
fonctioonaires de la donane pendant tout ce conrs de plaintes do M. Adams 6tait de ne
Srendre anciine initiative etd'exigertoujoursune instance formellede la part des^tats-
^nis reccvable par les tribnnaux anglais. Un Eminent Idgiste anglaib, Sir R. P. CoUier,
interrog^ par le consul ani6ricain ^ Liverpool, n'hdsita point k declarer que le vaisseau
en question pouvait Hre saisi par le chef des officiers de douanes au susdit port, et il
consoilla au dit consul de s'adresser au minist^re des affaires <5trang^res, adn qu'il ratifi&t
cette saisie si die 6tait fiiite, ou Pordonnftt si elle ne I'^tait pas.
' Cinq affidacita fnrent produits, que M. Collier d'abord et ensuite le gouvernement
reconnurent coniine preuves concluantes snr la quality et la destination du vaisseau en
pleine contravention an foreign-enlistment act; si ce statut n'est pas appliqn^, daiw cetU
droonstanoej ajontait M. Collier, il n'est gu^re qu^une letire morte, Le consul am^ricain h
Liverpool remit cette consultation au sous-secr6tairo d'6tat des affaires ^trang^res et
an secr^^taire du bureau des douanes. Le sous-secretaire d'etat ne donna pas de suite
imnx^diato h, cette communication, et le secr<$taire du bureau des douanes diit atteudre
les ordres des lords de latr^sorerie, qui ne lui parvinrent que le 28 juillet; les m^mes
documents furent aussi communique k Lord Russell. Ce ni^me jour, 28 juillet, les
conseillers l<^gaux de la couronno ayant formula leur avis de faire arrdter le vaissejia,
le 29, des ordres fnrent dpnn^ dans ce sens par le gonvemement britanni que. Poor
Justifier le long d6lai qui 6tait intervonu entre la presentation des documents an mi-
nist^re des affaires dtrang^res et le prononcd de I'avis des conseillers 16ganx de la con-
ronne, on invoqua la circonstance de la maladie de I'avocat de la Reine. On a de 1a
peine k s'arrdter sur cette excuse, du moment quMl se trouvait d'antres l^gist^s qui
pouvaient remplacer ce fonctionnaire, et qn'il y avait p^ril en la demenre. Sur ces
entrefaites, le vaisseau eut tout le temps de s'6chapper. Je ne m'6tendrai pas sor les
details des precautions prises par le commandant deFAlabama pour dluderla vigilance
assez peu s^v^re des omciers des douanes, ni sur les calouls des distances, pins oa
moins longnes, qu'on aurait k frauchir poor arriver k temps de faire faire arrdter le navire
OPINIONS OF COUNT SCLOPIS. 77
at Beanraaris, Moelfra Bay, and Point Lynas. These difficulties in the
way of prompt action at the last moment do not, it must be admitted,
atone for the want of an active supervision which had been promised,
but which, unfortunately, was not exercised.
Allow me here to reproduce a passage from the pleadings of Great
Britain, in which it is said, with reference to the complaints of the United
States on the subject of the escape of the Alabama, " It is asking that
a government, with its various departments, with its modes of action
which are, of necessity, methodical and more or less complex, shall act
at all times with a mechanical precision which is not applicable to the
practical business of life." It seems to me, in the fir^t place, that the
circumstances in which the British government was placed at this
moment were not exactly the ordinary course of life. Too many interests
were at stake, too many contending fears and hopes were brought into
play at the commencement of the formidable contest between the North
and the South of the American Union, to allow of the matters which
related to these great agitations following the ordinary course of life.
The measures to be taken for the preservation of English neutrality
were, moreover, neither very complicated nor over-arduous. It would
have sufficed that the customs officers should have been more attentive,
more alert, and, perhaps, less prejudiced in favor of a cause which had
become popular at Liverpool, and other British shipbuilding centers.*
There is ground for some surprise at finding the collector of customs
constituting himself a judge of legal evidence, when what was required
was a prompt recourse to more direct means of guaranteeing the duties
of neutrality. In the Counter Case presented by the government of Her
Britannic Majesty, (page 81;) I read that it is true that, in cases of this
nature, neutral governments ordinarily expect to receive information
from the ministers or consuls of belligerent powers resident within their
territories. I stop at the word ordinarily^ and I infer from it that the
British government itself recognizes, and with great reason, that there
toachant h BeanmariBi ik Moelfra Bay et k Point Lynas. Ces difficnlt^s d'agir prompte-
Qient k la derni^re heurene couvrent pas, il faut rayoaer, le manque d'une surveillance
active, telle qu'elle avait 6t6 promise, mais qui malheureasement n'a pas 6t6 exerc^e.
Qa'il me soit perniis de reproduire ici un passage du plaidoyer de la Grande-Bretagnc,
oa il est dit k propos des plaiutes des J^tats-Unis, au sujet de T^vasion de TAlabama :
"Cest demander qu'un gouvernement, avec ses branches Yari6es, ses ressorts dont
raction est n^cessairement cumpliqu6e et plus on moins m<Sthodique, fonctionne en
t4)at temps avec une precision m^cauique qui n'est pas applicable an train ordinaire de
U vie/' If me parait d'abord que les circonstances oh se trouvait le gouveruemeut
i'ritanniqoe, en ce moment, n'^taient point pr6cis^ment le train ordinaire de la vie.
Trop d'int^r6ts ^taient en jeu, trop de craintes et dJesp^rances se contrecarraient au
comiiiencement de la latte formidable entre le nord et le sud de TUniou am^ricainc,
poor que les affaires qui avaient trait ^ ces grandes agitations dussent suivre le train
ordinaire de la vie.
Les mesar^ k prendre pour sanve^arder la nentralit^ anglaise n '^talent d'aiUeurs ni
trop oompliqn^es ni trop ardues. 11 aurait suffi que les omciers des douancs enssent
^i^. plus attentifs, plus alertes, et pent-^tre moins pr^venus en favenr d^ine cause qni,
^Liverpool et dans d'autres cbantiers anglais, 4tait devenue popu1aire.t II y a lien
d'etre quelque pea surpris, en entendant le collecteur des douanes s'^riger en appr^cia-
teorde preuves l^gales, tandis qu'il aurait fallu reconrir prumptemeut k des moyens
pins directs de garantir les devoirs de la neutrality. Dans le '* Counter-case " pr^sent^
par le gonvernement desa Mfyest^ britannique, (page 81,) le lis quMl est vrai que, dans
des cas de cette nature* les gouvemenients neutres s'attendent dWdinairek recevoir des
fenseignements des ministres ou des consuls qui repr6sentent sur leurs territoires les
puiaeonoea beUig^rantes. Je m'arrdte sur le mot d^ordinaire (ordinarily) et j^en d^duis
qae le gonyemement britannique reconnalt lai-m6me, avec grande raison, qu'il pent y
* See Speeches and Dispatches of Earl Bussell, vol. ii, pages 259, 260.
t Voir " Speeches and dispatches of Earl Russell/' voL ii, pp. 259 k 260.
78 ARBITRATION AT GENEVA.
may be extraordinary cases in which a neutral should take action to
enforce respect for its neutrality, without awaiting information from a
belligerent.
That the case of the No. 290 was not an ordinary case seems to me
evident, since the construction of the vessel had given rise to so mach
anxiety.
When the departure of this vessel was ascertained, Lord Eussell, fore-
seeing that probably it might not be possible to arrest her in the waters
on the coast of England, where search was being made for her, stated
that he would further give orders to arrest her at Nassau, where it was
probable that she might be fodnd.
When the Alabama quitted Moelfra Bay she had a crew of eighty
men ; she kept for some time along the Irish Sea, then rounded the north
coast of that island, and steered for Terceira, one of the Azores, where
she arrived on the 10th August.
The Alabama was joined in the waters of Terceira by two vessels, the
Agrippiua and the Bahama, which had also started from English ports,
and which brought her a considerable supply of cannon, munitions, aod
stores.
The combined action of vessels carrying and receiving munitions and
provisions constitutes a complex act entailing a joint responsibility.
Those who may raise any doubts on this question may be answered in
the words of Sir Bobert Peel, pronounced in the House of Commoqs on
the 28th April, 1830 : '^ Was it then to be contended that no expedition
was a military expedition except the troops had their arms on board the
same vessels with them ? If they were on board one vessel and their
arms in another, did that make any difference ? Was such a pretense
to be tolerated by common sense ?"
The vessel, completely armed, abandoned her arithmetical designation
^^ 290 " for the name of the Alaoama and hoisted the flag of the confed-
erate government, which however, on occasions, she replaced by the
British flag in order the better to deceive vessels which she wished to
attack. She thus commenced and pursued her adventurous and devas-
avoir des cas ex traordin aires oti un nentre doit agir sans attendre dee renseignements
d'un bellig^rant ponr faire respecter sa neutrality.
Que lo cos du N° 290 ne fut point un cas ordinaire, cela me paralt d^montr6| pnisqae
sa construction avait donn6 I'oveil & tant de sollicitudes.
Quand le depart de ce vaisseau fut constats, Lonl Russell, prdvoyant que probable-
ment il ne pourrait plus dtre arr6t<S dans les eanx oh on allait le chercher anx cdtes de
TAngleterre, dit qn'au surplus 11 donnerait des ordres pour Tarr^ter ik Nassau, oii il
^tait probable qu'on le trouverait.
Quand T Alabama quitta la bale de Moelfra, il avait un Equipage de quatre-vingt
hommes, il suivit pendant quelque temps la mer d'Irlande, puis tourna la c6te nord de
cette lie et se dirigea sur Terceira, Tune des Azores, oil elle arriva le 10 aoftt.
L' Alabama fut rejoint duns les eaux de Terceira par deux vaisseaux : TAgrippinA et
le Bahama, sortis ^galement des ports d'Angleterre, qui lui apport^rent an renfort con-
siddrable de canons, de munitions et d'approvisionnement.
L'action combing de vaisseaux portant et recevant des munitions et des appro-
visionnements constitue an fait complexe emportant une responsabilitd solidaire. A
coax qui soul^veraient des doates h cet 6gard, on pourrait r^pondre avec les paroles de
Sir Robert Peel, prononc<6es dans la stance de la Chambre des communes le US avril
1830: '*£tait-ce ii dire qu'aucune expedition n'€tait uue expedition militaire & moins
que les troupes n'eussent leurs armes avec elles sur le mdme vaisseaaf Si les troapes
etaient sur un vaisseau et les armes sur nu autre, cela faisait-il*ane difference? Lne
telle pretention etait-elle supportable par le sens commuo f"
Le vaisseau arm6 compietement en guerre quitta son indicateurarithmetique "290"
pour prendre le nomd' Alabama, hissale pavilion du gouvernem^nt des confederes, qu'4
Voccasion cependant il rempla^ait par le pavilion britannique, pour mieux tromperles
vasseaux quMl voulait attaquer. II entreprlt et ponrsuivit ainsi ses courses aventaren-
ses et devastatrices. EUes parurent deontes avec dee details minatieux et techniqaos
OPINIONS OF COUNT 8CLOPI8. 79
tilting cruises. They appeared, described with minate and technical
detaiU, iu the journal kept on board by Mr. Fallam, and even under
the form of romance in a work intended to satisfy public curiusiiy, at
that time much excited on the subject. Among the vessels destroyed
bv the Alabama was the Federal war-steamer Hatteras.
On arriving at Jamaica, the Alabama found in the port three English
vessels of war. Instead of being arrested in English waters by the
English ships, the crew met with the best reception ; she was supplied
with the means of repairing her damages, and seven days afterward the
Alabama steered for the coast of Brazil, and thence to the Cape of Oood
Hope.
The conduct of the English authorities, under these circumstances,
was approved by Lord Kussell, who confined himself to expressing a
hope that the vessel would be required to leave as soon as the necessary
repairs were finished.*
. On her arrival at Saldana Bay, in the colony of the Cape of Good
Hope, and consequently in the territorial waters of the British empire,
the commander of the Alabama informed the governor that he had put
into this bay with the object of effecting some indispensable repairs.
The United States consul protested, without loss of time, demanding
that the vessel should be seized and sent to England, whence she had
clandestinely escaped, adding that the repairs making to the vessel,
namely, that of repainting her, could not be considered as of an urgent
nature. The same consul added that he had, with his own eyes, seen
the Alabama take a prize in those same waters. The government replied
that this had taken place at a distance from the shore to which British
jurisdiction did not extend.
After her arrival at the Cape, the commander of the Alabama in-
formed the government that he had left outside of British waters one
of his previous prizes, the Tuscaloosa, and that she would shortly ar-
(IftOd le joarnal tonu h bord par M. Fullam, et m6me sons des formes romanesqaes dans
an onvrage destiu^ ii defrayer la curiosity publiqae, alors surexcitee. Parmi lea des-
truetioos de vaisseaux op^r^es par ^Alabama, il y eat celle da steamer de guerre i6-
•it^raL le Hatteras.
Arriy^ k la Jamaiqae, I'Alabama y rencontra dans le port trois vaisseanx de snerre
snglaiji. An lien d'etre arrdt^ dans ces eanx anglaises par des navires anglais, r^qni-
pu^e y ref nt le meillenr accneil ; on lui donna les moyeus de r<^parer ses avaries, et sept
joare apr^ T Alabama se dirigea sur la c6te da Brdsil et de 1^ vers le Cap de Bonne-
ilip^rance.
La condnite des aatorit^ anglaises, dans ces circonstances, fat approav^e par Lord.
BtiDscU, qai se boma ^ esp^^rer qne ce vaisseau aurait ^t^ reqais de partir aussit6t apr^s
^iue les fi^paratious indispeusables aaraient 6t6 termin6es.t
Airi?^ 4 la bale de Saldanha, dans la colonie da Cap de Bonne-Esp^rance, et partant
<l.iQs les eaux territoriales de la souverainet'^ anglaisd, le commandant de TAlabama
inibnna le gouyernement qn'il ^tait vena ^ cette bale- dans le but de faire quelqnes
't'parations indispeusables.
Le consul des btats-Unis ne tarda pas h protester, en demandant que le vaisseau fdt
^M^i et envoy^ en Auglcterre, d'od ils'^tait ^chapp^ clandestinement, en ajoutautqu'on
B*' pouvait pasconsid^rer comme une reparation urgente du navire celle que Ton faisait —
''♦••t-i-dire, de le repeindre. Le m6me consul ajout^it qu'il avait vu de ses propres
vax TAlabama exdcuter des prises dans ces mSmes eanx. II lui fut ri^pondu par le
^•iprerDemeut que cola s'^tait pass^ h une distance de-la c6te k laquelle la juridictiou
i^giaise ne pouvait pas s'^tendre.
Apres sou arriviSe k la ville du Cap, le commandant de TAlabama informa le
puvernement qa*il avait laiss^ bora des eanx anglaises une de ses captures pr^c^dentes,
Ir Toscalbosa, et qu'elle arriverait bientOt en qucilit^ de tender, Ce navire arriva, en
* Letter from Mr. Hammond to Sir F. Rogers, February 14, ld63,
tLettre de M. Hammond k Sir F. Rogers, 14 fiSvrier 1863.
80 ARBITRATION AT GENEVA.
rive in the capacity of tender. This vessel in fact arrived, and her
cargo of wool was made over to a merchant of Cape Town to be taken
to Europe and sold there. The cargo was disembarked at a point
named Angra Pequena, oatside of British jurisdiction.
When the Tuscaloosa appeared in the port, the Britsh rear-admiral.
Sir Baldwin Walker, wrote to the governor to know if this vessel ought
still to be considered as a prize, although she had never been condemned
as such by a competent tribunal. He persisted in his opinion, which
was in direct variance with the tolerance of the governor ; the latter
referred to the attorney-general, and he subsequently replied on the
advice of this last officer, but in terms which betrayed a faltering con-
viction that the vessel might be considered as a vessel of war.
A correspondence ensued between the governor of the Cape and the
colonial minister, the Duke of Newcastle, as to the legality of the cap-
tures. That minister disapproved the conduct of the governor and the
application of the principles of law on which the attorney-general had
based his opinion.
While this was taking place the Tuscaloosa had returned to the port,
and having thus placed herself within the limits of British jurisdic-
tion she was seized. The British government, when informed of this
act, disavowed it, and ordered that the vessel should be restored to the
confederate lieutenant who commanded her; in case that officer had
left the Cape, directions were given to wait till the vessel could be
handed over to some person whom the commander of the Alabama or
the government of the Confederate States might nominate for the pur-
pose. The English minister, reversing in some degree his former decis-
ion, based the instructions as to the restitution of the vessel on the
peculiar circumstances of the case,*
Her Britannic Majesty's minister declares, in the same dispatch, ^^thaf
it becomes unnecessary to disctiss whether^ on Jier return to the Cape, the
effety c^a sa cargaison de laine h an marchand de Cape Town pour la transporter en
Europe, aiin d'y dtre vendue. La cargaison fut d6barqu6e sur un point appel^ Angra
Pequefia, en deliors de lajuridiction britannique.
Lorsque le Tuscaloosa par ut dans cet endroit, le contre-amiral anglais, Sir Baldwin
Walker, 4crivit an ^ouverneur pour savoir si ce vaisseau devait fitre encore cousid^r^
comme uno prise, bien qu'il u'edt jamais 6t6 condamnd comnie telle par un tribunal
competent. II insista dans sun opinion tout ^fait oppos^e & la tol6raQce du gouverneur ;
oelui-oi en r6f^ra i\ Fattorney-general, et r^pondit eusuite, d'apr^s Tavis de ce dernier,
mais dans des termes qui trahissaieut une conviction obaucolante, quo ce navire
pouvait se considi^rer comme vaisseau de guerre.
Une correspondance s'ensuivit entro le gouverneur du Cap et le miolstre des Ci»lonies,
due de Newcastle, sur la 16galit^ des captures. Ce ministre ddsapprouva la conduite
du gouverneur et rapplication des principes de droit sur lesquels rattorney-general
8'6tait fondd.
Pendant que cela se passait, le Tuscaloosa ^tait rentr^ dans le port ; et s'^tant ainsi
plac6 dans les limites de la juridiction anglaise, il fut saisi. Le gouvernement
britannique, inform^ de cet acte, le d^savoua, et fit rendre ce vaisseau an lieutenant
eonf6d6r4j qui le commandait ; dans le cas oti cet oiiicier eftt quitt^ le Cap^ il sgouta
au'il fallait attendre pour remettre le vaisseau ^ la personne que le commandant de
1. Alabama, on le gouvernement des ^tate-conf^d^r^s, anrait d^sign^e ^ cet eiTet : le
ministre anglais, revenaut en qnelque sorte sur see premieres decisions, basait des
instmctions relatives k la restitution du navire sur Us circonatanceB exceptionnelles de
raffaire.
Le ministre de sa Majesty britannique declare dans la mdme d^p^ohe quHl n-ett piua
uHlededisouter sid son retour au Cap le TuMuloosa oonservait toujours U oarac&re ^une prise
* Dispatch of the Duke of Newcastle to Sir P. Wodehouse, March 10, 1864 : '^ I have
now to explain that this decision was not founded on any general principle respecting
the treatment of prizes captured by the oraisera of either belligerent, but on the pecu-
liar ciroomstances of the case.''
OPINIONS OP COUNT SCLOPIS. 81
Tuscaloosa still retained the character of a prize, or whether she had lost
that character and had assumed that of an armed tender to the Alabama,
and whether that new character, if properly estahlisJied and admitted, would
have entitled her to the same privilege of admission which miglit he accorded
to her captor, the Alabama.^
In my capacity as arbitrator, I cannot avoid a discussion, even though
it should be without use to one of the parties, and I must admit that it
seems to me that the observations originally made with equal candor
and good sense by Hear- Admiral Walker, of the British navy, should
guide the opinion of the tribunal in the decision of the point which the
British government regarded as difficult aud doubtful.
To resume, 1 am of opinion that the neutrality of Great Britain was
gravely compromised by the vessel named the Alabama. Consequently
Great Britain is responsible for the acts of the said vessel, as well as
for those of her tender the Tuscaloosa.
V. — THE SHENANDOAH alias SEA KING.
First part
The first charge which the United States bring against the British
government with regard to this vessel, which was built on
the shores of the Clyde, is that she was sold to Richard
Wright, of Liverpool, a British subject, and father-in-law of Mr. Prioleau
of South Carolina; this latter being the head partner of the firm of
Fraser, Trenholm & Co., notorious for its intimate relations with the
coDtederate government.
Tiie (Jnited States maintain that in view of the above relations, which
could not be unknown to the Euglish government, this latter ought to
have watche<l the transfers of the class of vessels which from their build
betrayed de8igus hostile to the United States. Mr. Adams, on the
ground of two depositions of sailors on board this vessel, denounced her
to Lord Russell as destined for the confederate government.
ou ^il atait perdu ce caracthe pour prendre celui d'un bdtiment de servitude arm4 pour
T Alabama, et ai ce nottveau caracthrey dument constat^ et admid, lux aurait donn6 droit aux
nmt»prirH^€K ^admiesion qtCon aurait accord^ a son vainqueur, P Alabama.
Dans ma quality cVarbitre je ne puis pas ^carter nne discussion, quaud m^me elle ne
fitrait point utile h I'nne des parties, et je dois avouer que les observations faites d'abord
avec a^itant de loyant^ que de bon sens par le contre>amiral Walker, de la marine
britannique, me paraisseut devoir dirigcr I'opinion des juges dans la d<Scision do ce
point, que le gouvernemeut britunnique envisa^^eait comme difficile et douteiix.
En me i«^«umant, je suis d'avis que le vaisseau nommd I'Alabaraa a ^ravement
coDipromisIa neutrality britannique. Cons^quemment, laresponsabilitd de 7a Grande-
Bretagne se trouve engagde tant pour les faits du dit vaissean que par ceux de son
UmdeTf le Tuscaloosa.
LE SHENANDOAH, ALIAS SEA KINO.
Premise partie,
Le premier reproche que, les fitats-Uuis adressent an gonvernement anglais ^ propos
<le ce vaissean construit sur les bords de la Clyde, c'est qu'il a 6t6 vendu b, Richard
Wright, de Liverp>ol, snjet anglais, et beau-p^re de M. Prioleau, de la Caroline du Sud;
c« dernier associe principal de la maison Fraser, Trenholm et C*% connue par ses rela-
tions intimea aveo le gonvernement des conf6d6res.
Les £tat8-Unis soutiennent que^ vu les relations susdites, qui ne pouvaient 6tre igno-
r^es par le gunvernement anglais, ce dernier aurait dft surveiller leS transferts de cette
cat^gorie de vaisseaux, qui, par leur construction accusaient des projets hostiles aux
£taCs*Unis. M. Adams, appuy^ de deux depositions de matelots ^ bord de ce navire,
denoD^it k Lord Russell la destination de ce vaisseau au gonvernement des conf(^d<$r€8.
6b
82 ARBITRATION AT GENEVA.
The Sea King took out a clearance for Bombay, and coal and supplies
for a. cruise of twelve months. Iliirdly had she weighed anchor, when
a telegram sent to Liverpool announced her departure to the confederate
agent at that port. The same evening a screw-steamer, nearly new,
admirably adapted for equipment as a privateer, named the Laurel,
manned by men thoroughly devoted to the confederate cause, who had
served on board the Sumter, Alabama, and Georgia, was laden with
arms and steered for the bay of Funchal, in the island of Madeira,
where she awaited the Sea King, which arrived two days after her.
In a desert corner of the bay of Madeira, the arms and ammunition
were transshipped from the Laurel to the Sea King. A man named
Corbett, an Englishman, who had received from Wright a power of at-
torney to sell the vessel, addressed the crew, announced the sale of the
vessel, which was. about to change her name and take that of Shenan-
doah, and endeavored to persuade the men of the crew to follow the
vessel in her new career in the confederate service. Of eighty sailors,
twenty-three only consented to remain in the new vessel of war.
The conduct of Corbett appeared to be in such evident contravention
of the foreign-erlistment act, that the British consul at Funchal sent
him home in custody to England. Captain Waddell succeeded hiui in
command.
Mr. Adams did not fail to inform Lord Russell of all that had taken
place with regard to these two vessels; he added that of the officers
transfe red to the Shenandoah, the greater part were British subjects
who had been saved by English intervention at the moment when they
were going on board the Ahibama.
The Sheuandoah went from Madeira to Melbourne; on the passage,
which lasted ninety days, she destroyed several vessels of the merchant
navy of the United States with their cargoes, and finished by anchor-
ing on the 25th January, 18G5, at Sandridge, a small village two miles
from Melbourne.
If we are to believe a letter addressed by Mr. Blanchard, United
» ■ . - ■ — '
Le Shenandoah prit Hes papiera do bord pour Bombay, et dn charbon et des approvi-
siounenuMits pour une c^oi8i^^o de donze uiois. A peine le Sea King avait-il love rancre
qu'nii t^l<^t;ramnie expMi6 h Liverpool annon^ait son depart h, Vageiit oonf<^d^r<^ de ce
port. Dans )a in(^uie Hoir^e iin stiMiiuer h, hc^lice, preRqae neuf, admirablement ajipropri^
k un armenient de courn^, nonim<^ le Laurel, niout<^ par de8 homines trbs-dcvuu^^ au
parti confed<5r<^, qui avaieut servi j\ bord du Sumter, de TAlabama et du Georgia, chargea
des aruu'S et se dirigea vers la baie de Funchal, dans Pile de Mad^re, oil il att^odit le
Sea King, qui arriva deux jours ap^^s lui.
' 13au8 uu coin d68ert de la baie de Mad^re il se fit nn transbordement d*annes et de
munitions du Laurel sur le Sea King. Un nommd Corbett, un Anglais qui avait re^n
de Wright une procuration pour vendro le naviro, se prdsenta k r^quipage, annonva
la vente faite du vaisseau, qui allaic changer de nom et prendre celui de Sheuandoah, et
engagea les hommes de I'equipage A. suivre ce vaisseau dans sea nouvelles destinies au
service des conf6d6r^s, Sur quaire-vingt matelots, vingt-trois seulement consentirent
h rester sur ce nouveau vaisseau de guerre.
La conduite de Corbett parut si ^videmment contraire an foreign-enlUftment act que le
consul anglais b, Funchal Tenvoya prisounier en Angleterre. *Le capitaine Waddell
lui 8ucc<^da dans le conmiandement.
M. Adams ne manqna pas d'informer Lonl Russell de tout ce qui s'dtait pass^ h propos
do CCS deux vaisseaux; il lui ajouta que parmi les ofticiers transfdr^s sur le Shenan*
doah, la x^lupart <^taient des sujets anglais, qni avaient <^t^ sauv68 par une interventioa
anglaise au moment oil ils se rendaient k bord de I'AIabama.
Le Shenandoah se porta de Mad^re sur Melbourne; dans le triget, qni dura qnatre-
Tingt-dix jours, il ddtrnisit plusieura vaisseaiix de la marine marchaude des Stat^-Uois,
aiusi que leurs cargaiAons, et linit par jeter Fancre, le 25 Janvier 1865, k Sandridge, un
petit village k deux milles de Melbourne.
Si Ton eu croit une lettre adress^ par M. Blanchard, consul des Jfitata-Uuis k Mel-
OPINIONS OF COUNT SCLOPIS 83
States consul at Melbourne, to Mr. Seward, Secretary of State at Wash-
ington, the mail from Europe, which had arrived some days before, had
brought news that the Sea King had left England with the intention of
being transformed into a vessel of war to cruise against the commerce
of the United States.
The United States consul at Melbourne informed the governor, with-
out loss of time, of all the circumstances which he' considered as proofs
that the Shenandoah was not a vessel of war of a recognized belligerent,
but rather a privateer bearing all the marks of its guilt.
The British authorities at Melbourne are accused of having been ex-
cessively complaisant toward the commander and crew of the Shenan-
doah ; it is asserted that the governor had unofficially re-assured her
commander before officiall^^ granting him what he requested.
Captain Waddell did not hurry himself to stat« what were the repairs
and supplies which he needed, and the governor, instead of adhering
rigorously to the general instructions with which the British govern-
ment had furnished him, referred it rather to Waddell to determine the
length of time to be granted him. While the repairs were slowly going
on, Waddell was making recruits in the town of Melbourne to till up
the gaps which were left in his crew.
In the American Appendix (vol. v, pp. 660 et seq,) are inserted the
reiwrts of the proceedings of the legislative assembly at Melbourne,
which show that the opinion of the majority was in favor of treating
the commander of the Shenandoah with leniency, and leaving the mat-
ter to the decision of the government and the colonial authorities.*
Pressed by the remonstrances and protests of the United States con-
sul, the governor referred the question to the law-officers of the colo-
nial government, who replied that there was no evidence of piracy hav-
ing been committed by any one on board the vessel, and that she should
be treated as a ship of war.
Iionrne, h M. Seward, Secr<Sfcaire d'l^tat h Washington, la malle d^Europe, arriv^^e quel
qne» jonre anparavant, avait apport^ la nonveUe que le Sea King avait quitt^ I'Angle-
ttrre avec rnit4^ntiou de se tranHtbrmer en vaisseau de guerre pour crolser coutre le
commerce des fitats-Uiiis.
Le coDsn] des fitat«-Uuis dans cette ville ne tarda pas li informer le gouverneur de
toiites Ie8 circoustances par lesquelles il croyait prouv^ que le Shenandoah u'<^tait point
(lu tout un vaisseau de guerre d'un bellig<^raut recouuu, uiais bleu plut6t un corsaire,
ayaut toutes lea marqnes de sa culpabilitc.
On accuHO les autorit^s auglaises de Melbourne d^avoir 6t6 excessivement condescen-
dautes en vers le coniniandant et Pdquipage dn Shenandoah; on pretend que ce gonver-
iit'ur avait rassnrcS oiiicieusemeut le commandant avant de lui accorder officiellemeut
ce (jii'il demandait.
Le capitaine Waddell ne se pressa point pour faire connaltre quelles 6taient les
n^paratious et les approvisionnements qu'il lui fallait, et le gouverneur, au lieu de s'en
teuir a la rigeur des instructions geii^rales que le gouvernement anglais lui avait
tniiisiiiises, s^en rapporta pluti>t i\ Waddell sur Tespace de temps & lui accorder.
Pendant qu'cm procedait lentement aux reparations, Waddell faisait des recrues dans
la viUe de Melbourne, pour remplir les vides que laissait son Equipage.
Dans Tappendice am^ricain (vol. v, pages 660 et suivautes) on a ins^r^ des rapports dca
actfM (le Vsissemblee l<^gis)ative de Melbourne, qui marquent que Topinion de la majoritd
inciinait h manager le commandant du Shenandoah et ^ s'eu remettre k Tavis du gon-
veruement et des autorit^s coloniales.t
Press^ par les instances et les protestations du consul des £tats-Unis, le gouverneur
di-fera la question aux conseillers 16gaux du gouvernement colonial, qui r<^pondirent
Hu'il n*y avait aucune preuve de piraterie commise par qui que ce fClt au bord du uavire,
*:i qae Ton devait traiter celui-ci comme uu bdtimeut de guerre.
* See the speech of Mr. O'Shanassy, p. 663 of the volume referred to.
t Voir le discours de M. O'Sbauassy, p. 663 du volume cit^.
84 ARBITRATION AT GENEVA.
The suspicions which had been entertained of the clandestine ship-
ment of some persons on board the Shenandoah continued to increase.
The permission granted to the captain to take in supplies and make re-
X)airs was suspended, and the government published a proclamation for-
bidding British subjects to give aid or assistance to the Shenandoah. •
The assertion of the fact of the clandestine shipment of certain men
on board the Shenandoah was borne out, and the commander and offi-
cers of that vessel had to give explanations as to the assurance they
had given that no shipment of this kind had taken place, and as to the
fact that they had unfortunately not fulfilled this engagement made on
their word of honor.
The American case and the British counter case contain details as to
the facilities which the topographical situation of Hobson's Bay and
Port Philip afibrded for the escape of men watched by the police, whose
insufficient means did not allow of their exercising supervision at every
point, in order to prevent the departure of the persons enlisted. It
may also be doubted whether the legal advisers of the colonial gov-
ernor and his police officers were over-anxious to second the energetic
efforts of the United States consul.
I will note two circumstances which appear to me to deserve special
attention :
1. The confidential instructions, by which the authorities at Mel-
bourne had, from the first, said that they must be guided, are published
at page 125 of the fifth volume of the Appendix to the British Ca^e,
and the last document contained in them traces exactly the line of
conduct which was finally followed by the government toward Captain
Waddell.
2. The postscript of a letter from Mr. Adamson to Mr. Davis, which
is to be found at page 037 of the documents annexed to the American
counter case, (Frencii translation,) reveals a moral pressure producing
a cynical disavowal.
The Shenandoah, on leaving the port of Melbourne, took with her
400 tons of coal, if the American consul is to be believed, with full
Les Boui>90D8 qae Ton avait tie Pembarqiiemont clandeatin de quelqnes personnes ^
bord du Shenandoah ne firent qu'angtneDter. La permission accord6e au capit>aioe de
faire deH approvisionuements et den reparations fut saspendue, et le gouveruement
publia uue proclamation pour d^foudre aax sijgets britanniques de prdter aide et Bssia-
tance au Shenandoah.
L'assertion dn fait de Pembarquement clandestin de quelques hommes du Shenan-
doah fut maintenue, et le commanduut ct les officiers de ce vaisaeau dureut donncr des
explications snr la parole qu'ils avaieut donn^e qu'aucun embarqnement do ce genre
n'avait eu lieu, et sur le fait qu'ils n^avaient malheureusement piis r^pondu & cet engage-
ment de parole d'honneur.
Le '^Case'^ am^ricain et le '^Counter-case'' anglais contieunent des d<^t>ail8 sur la
faculty que la situation topographique de Hobson's Bay et Port Philip prdtait h T^va-
sion d'hommes surveill^ par la police, dont les faibles moyeus ne permettaieut point
d*exercer une surveillance sur tous les points, afin d'emp#cher ces sorties de geus em-
bauch^s. II est aussi perm is de douter que les conseillers 16gaux du gouverneur colonial
et ses officiers de police fussent des mieux dispos<Ss ^ seconder rempressemeut des
d-marches du consul des £ta,ts-Uuis.
Je iioterai deux circonstances qui me paraissent m6riter une attention sp^ciale :
1. Les instructions confidentielles d'apr^ lesqnelles les autorit^ de Melbourne
avaient dit d'abord ^tre obligees de se r<^gler furent publi^es & la pap^ 125 dn cinqni^me
volume de Tuppendice au '* Case" anglais, et la derni^re pi^oe qui s'y rattache trace
exactment la ligne qui a 6i6 suivie par le gouveruement en dernier lieu vis-^-vis dn
capital ne Waddell.
2. LiH po8t-8criptum d'une lettre de M. Adamson h. M. Davis, qui se lit & la page 637 des
pieces annexdes au '^ Counter- case '' am<Sricain (traduction franyaise) r^v^le une
pression morale produisant un cynique dd^aveu.
Le Shenandoah, en quittant les eaux de Melbourne, emportait avec Inl 400 tonnes de
OPINIONS OF COUNT SCLOPIS. 85
sailing ringing, trasting more to her sailing than to her steaming pow
ers. This excess of supplies was denounced to the governor, and the
United States, reckoning up the several shipments of coal made by the
Shenandoah, infer that she was meditating a fresh cruise on her depart-
ure from Melbourne, so that that port became a base of naval opera-
tions for the insurgents.
The cruise of the Shenandoah furnishes materials for a special de-
scription, and among the reviews of the facts relating to this vessel is
one to which I will here refer — that of Mr. Montague Bernard, who
says that so large a number of recruits as we may believe to hav^e been
shipi)ed by her, could not have come on board without Captain Wad-
deirs knowledge. I shall return to this question of the number of re-
cruits, which is evidently exaggerated.
One cannot resist the belief that the tolerance of the authorities at
Melbourne contributed greatly to enable the vessel to pursue her adven-
turous career in the Arctic seas, whither she repaired by Behring's
Straits.
The number of whaling- vessels which the Shenandoah destroyed in
these waters, at a time when the confederate gov^ernmeut had ceased
to exist, raises the amount which the United States lay to her charge,
to a sum little less than that for which the Alabama is held responsible.
It is not proved that the Shenandoah absolutely lost her original
character of a British vessel manned by a British crew. It is affirmed
that this vessel shipped at Melbourne 300 tons of coals, which had
been sent to her from Liverpool. The Government of the United
States adds that the name of the vessel which brought this coal was
the John Fraser, and this occurrence it seeks to adduce as an incrim-
inating circumstance.
The British government, in its counter case, (page 110 of the French
translation,) says that, at the present day, when the distance of time
aud place prevents an exact knowledge of all the particular circum-
stances, it would serve no useful purpose to follow all the details of a
technical discussion founded largely on conjecture.
fliarlMin, si Ton en croit le consul amdricain, nne iiiriture compl^te, s'cn tenant pins h
la voile qiri\ la vapeur. Ce luxe d'ap])ro vision neuieut fnt ddnonc^ au gonveruenr, et
lesfitats-ViHS, en snpputant les divers chtirgements de charbon faits par le Shenandoah,
ea dodiiiscnt qn'il projettait nne nouvelle croisiere en sortant de Melbourne, de sorte
que ce port devenait pour les iii8urg<^8 une base d'opdrations navales.
La crui^i^re du Shenandoah fournit la mati^re k une description toute particnli^rc,
et partiii les appr<SciationR des faits qui concernent ce vaisseau il y en a une que jo
rapporte ici, celle de M. Mountague Bernard, qui dit qu^in nonibre aussi grand do
rtfcrnes <prt>n pent croire, qui ait ^te enibarqu(^ k son ]»ord, n'aurait pu s^y reudro sans
que le capital nc Waddell en edt couuaissauce. Je vais reveuir sur ce uombre de
ivcnies ('videininent exag^r^.
Oil ue pent se refuser a croiro <iue la tol<?ranco des antoritt^s de Melbourne a beaucoup
aiilt^ A mettre ce vaisw^au en otaf de iioursuivre sa carriere aveutureuse dans les raers
Arctique>s oii 11 se rendit par le drtroit de Behring.
Li*s destructions des baleiniers que le Shcnandoali opera dans ces eaux, dans un
tfiiipH ou le gouvtTuenjent des roufed<^ros avait ccss<* (Vexister, ftrait monter la oonipta-
lnlito, dont les £tats-lTiiis le cliargeut, a uu chittre de jjeu inferieur j\ celui dont on
charjff* la responsabilit*^ de TAIabaina.
11 n'est pas prouv*^ qxut le Shenandoah ait effect ivemeut perdu son caractere priniitif
<!♦» vai.sseau et d*6quipage britannique. II est aflirin^ (pie ce vaisseau einbaniua &
MHUourne 300 tonnes de rharbnn, (pii lni avaient 6t6 exp<^di«5es de Liverpool. Le
(JonvtTneinent des fitats-Unis ajoute que le nom du vaisseau qui apporta ce charbon
^tait le John Fraser, et il pretend en d<5duire un argument de culpability^.
Le gouverDement britannique, dans son contre-m^moire, (p. 110 de IVdition fran^aise,)
dit qu'lk cette henre, oh le temps et la distance emp^cbent de reconnaltre avec exacti-
tnde tons lea details accessoires, il n\v aurait aucune utility r6elle h suivre tous les
details d'nne augmentation technique forg<^e largement sur des conjectures.
86 ARBITRATION AT GENEVA'.
The American Government does not relinquish its complaints. I con-
sider that, in order to form a judgment on the last period of the cruise
of the Shenandoah, it is of the greatest importance to dwell on the
sworn depositions of the two masters of whaling- vessels, Ebenezer I?ye
and Thomas Hathaway, which are given at the end of the second part
of the selections from the Appendix to the Case of the United States
(French translation.)
To replace the force of a vessel in a proportion equal to that which it
had lost, is not, strictly speaking, an augmentation of force. We find
this maxim laid down in a judgment of the Supreme Court of the United
States, quoted in the interesting memorandum of Mr. Abbott, (I^ord
Tenterden.) It is necessary, therefore, to prove an extraordinary- aug-
mentation of force in order to establish a solid presumption of fresh
attempts against the duties of neutrality. It is on these much-dis-
puted facts, which are, in my belief, capable of further elucidation, that
1 beg my honorable colleagues to assist me with their information. If
necessary I will appl^' to the parties themselves for further exx)lanations.
/Second part.
In the session of the day before yesterday, being placed in the deli-
cate position of having to determine, by my casting vote, the decision
in the Important and complicated case of the Shenandoah, I applied to
my honorable colleagues for elucidations calculated to determine my
opinions, disturbed by doubts. I may be excused this hesitation, caused
by certain apparent contradictions in the facts of the case, and b^' the
desire not to allow myself to be led away bj^ a combination of appear-
ances, which, though supported by plausible reasoning, might, never-
theless, be deceitful.
I now beg you, gentlemen, to allow me to state to you my opinion,
hesitating the day before yesterday, confirmed to-daj' by the results of
the discussion which I have elicited, and which yon have succeeded in
rendering fruitful and decisive by your information.
Le gonvomenient anidricain ue se d^siste pas de sea plain toB. Je crois qu'il est
d'uue extreme importance, pour former un jngeiiient sur la de^ni^^e pdriode de la
croiBiere du Shenandoah, de H'arr^tcr sur 1e8 d<5 posit ions assermentdes des deux patrous
des navires baleiuiers. Ebenezer Nye et Thomas Hathaway, que Ton trouve vera la fin
de la deuxii^me partie du choix des pieces justiiicatives h. I'appui du m6nioire des £tata-
,Unis.
Le remplacenient de la force d'un vaisseau dans une proportion 6gale h celle qn'il
avait perdue u'est pas, 4 parh^r rigoureusement, une augmentation de force. Nous
trouvons cette maxiuie consignee dans un jugementdo la Cour supreme des Etats-Unis,
cite dans I'iutdressant nieuiorandum de M. Abbott, (Lord Tenterden.) II faut done
dtablir une augmentation de force en sua de I'ordiuaire, pour qu'il y ait pr^»<omptioii
fondle de nouvelles eutreprises coiitre lea devoirs de neutrality. C'eat sur les faita
t^^s-controver8^s, et, t\ ce que je crois. susceptiblesd^une plus n:rAnde Elucidation, quo je
prie mes houtirables colleagues de ni'aider de leurs lumi^res. S*il e«t ndceasaire, je de-
manderai encore aux parties elles-mdmes des <Sclaircissemeut8.
Deuxihnve partie,
Dans la stance d'avant-hier, placd dans la circonstance trds-d^icate de determiner
par mon vote la majority pour la ddcision du cas aussi grave que compliqud du Sheuau-
doah, je demandais h mes honorables collogues dea Eclairci8Hement<a propres & fixer mes
iddes agit<^es par le doute. On me pardonnera ces agitations produitea par certaines
contrauictiona apparentea des faits de la cause, et par le d^sir de ue pas me laiaser
en trainer par I'ensemble d'a])parences qui, bien que rattachdes 4 des motifs plauaibles,
pouvaient ndanmoins 6tre trompeuses.
Je vous demande maintenant, messieurs, la permission de vonsexposer mon opinion,
chancelant« avant-hier, arr6t<5e aujourd'hui par suite de la discussion que j'ai soalev^,
et que vous avez su rendre fdcoude et decisive par voa lumi^rea.
OPINIONS OF COUNT SCLOPIS. 87
I ought, in the first place, to repeat what I have already said, that,
m my opinion, it is not absolutely proved that the fact ot* the repairs ot
the Shenandoah at Melbourne constitutes by itself grounds for a charge
of violation of neutrality. It is proved that these repairs were neces-
sary, and it is not shown that the replacement of the force of this vessel,
by means of these rei)airs, surpassed the measure of its former condi-
tion.
It remains to be seen, then, whether the excess in the supplj' of coal,
and above all the clandestine recruitment of part of the crew, effected
at Melbourne, assume, or not, the character of a base of naval opera-
tions, such as is contemplated in the second rule of Article VI.
The Shenandoah, on her departure from England, in the- month of
October, 1864, had a crew, according to the American reports, of forty-
seven men.*
At the time when she parted from the Laurel, the Shenandoah had
no more than twenty-three men on board, including ofl&cers.t
It appears that in the voyage from Madeira to Melbourne she shipped
many more men, since the governor at Melbourne says that on her ar-
rivaf at Hobson's Bay the crew of the ve^ssel amounted to ninety men.f
It appears, also, that a considerable number dispersed themselves after
that arrival, as Captain Waddell declares, since an offi(5er in the confi-
dence of the governor, instructed to make confidential inquiries as to
the state of the vessel, estimates the number of the crew at no more
than forty or fifty, all rough and undisciplined men.§
It is very difficult to ascertain exactly the number of men who were
on board the Shenandoah when she left Melbourne on her way to the
Arctic seas.
According to a rei)ort of the Melbourne police,§ the number of men
shipped at Melbourne on board the Slienandoah was said to amount to
sixty or seventy. According to the atfidavit of William A. Temple, the
Je dois d'alwrd r6p6ter %ie que j'ai <[6jh dit, qii'ilk man avis il u^est pas absolnment
proiiv^ que le fait des reparations du Shenaudoah a Melbourne constitne, k lui seul, ua
ar^nieut de violation de neutralit<$ II est prouvd que ces rdparations 6taient n^ces-
sairea, et il u'est pas d^montriS que le remplacenient de la force de ce vaisseau, par suite
de ces n^parations, ait ddpass^ la inesure do sou ^tat precedent.
II faiit done voir si Pexnberauce de Papprovisiouuemeut de charbon, et surtont le
recmteinent claudestiu d'une partie de I'^quipa^e op6r6 k Melbourne, preniient, ou
non, le caractfere de base d'opdrations navaleS| telle qu'elle est pr<$vue par la 2™® r^le
de rarticle VI.
Le Sbenandoab, h son depart d'Angleterre, an mois d'octobre 1864, avait un 6quipage,
d*apr^ les rapports amdncaius, de quaraute-sept bonuues.
Au moment oh il quitta le Laurel, le Sbeuaudoah u'avait plus que vingt-trois bommetf
a bord. y compris les officiers.
II paralt que daus le tmjet de Madere h Melbourne il einbarqna bien d'autrea
bomnies, pnisque le gouverneur de Melbourne ditqu^'i son arriv<^e daus le Hobson's Bay
IVqnipage du vaisseau se montait iquatre-viugt dix-huit horanies. II paratt anssi quo
bon notiibre s'en dispersa apr^s cetfce arrivide, ansi que le ddclare le capitaine Waddell,
piii^qu'au officier do confiancedu gouverneur, chargd de prendre des informations eou-
iideatiellessur Fdtat de Tembarcation, ne porte le nombre de Tequipage qu*ii quarante
ou ciuquarte, tons gens grossiers et indisciplines.
II est tr^s-difflcile de savoir au juste le nombre des liommes qui se tronvaient h bord
da Shenandoab quand il partit de Melbourne pour se rendre dans lesmers Arctiques.
lyapr^ nn rapport de la police de Melbourne, le nombre d'hommesembarqnes h Mel-
boame a bord du Shenandoah s'dl^verait a soixante ousoixaute-dix. D'ax)rL'8 Vaffidauit
* American Appendix, vol. v, p. 560.
t Ibid., p. 610.
t Appendix to British Case, vol. i, p. 564.
$ Ibid., p. 557.
88 ARBITRATION AT GENEVA*.
crew of the Shenandoah on her return to Liverpool amounted to one
handred and thirty-three, a number which includes some men who had
died at sea.
In the deposition of Captain Ebenezer Nye, it is said that, when he
came on board the Shenandoah, the want of sailors was much felt, as
there were only forty-fiv^e, half the number required. It is said, also,
that Mr. Nye, in conversation with Mr. Hunt, lieutenant of the Shenan-
doah, learned from him that forty-two men were enlisted at Melbourne;
that Captain Waddell, had refused the governor the right to seai-ch the
ship while a number of recruiU were mi hoard. From the affidavit of
Temple may be gathered certain details as to the men who came on
board the Shenandoah from several vessels captured in the Arctic seas.
They seem to have been twenty-six in number, which, added to fifty,
the presumed crew of the Shenandoah on leaving Melbourne, and further
adding the officers, fifty-seven in number, would give a total of one hun-
dred and thirty-three, corresponding to the number given by Temple,
with the deduction of the two men who died at sea.
This witness has, no doubt, been much discredited, but in the letter
from Mr. Hull to Mr. Bateson* will be found a formal denial, in Cap-
tiiin WaddelPs name, of several of the assertions of Temple, without
any mention of the list of the crew, which, no doubt, deserved special
attention, and which, notwithstanding, is not disputed. Lord Claren-
don himself, in his letter to Mr. Adams, of January 19, 1.SG6, while he
examines the bearing of some of the remarks in Temple's list, makes no
observation as to tlie correctness of the figures.
The law-officers of the Crown themselves, in their opinion of the 28th
of March, 1806, while refusing to attach credence generally to Temple's
statement, do not specially discredit the list. They seem to believe that
none of the persons on board the Shenandoah had been guilty of acts
on which legal proceedings could be founded; and they advise that the
matter should be allowed to drop.
de WiHiain A. Temple, Tdquipa^ dn Shenandoah ik son retonr & Liyeqiool aurait ^16 de
cent trente-trois, noinbre qui comprcnd quelqn«'8 homiuefl morts eii mer.
Dane la d<5|M>8ition du capitaina Ebeuezer Nye, il est dit que, loroquMl paaaa h bord
du Shenandoah, le luauque de niatelots Be faisait viveioent seutir, puiBqn'il u'y en avail
que quarantre-ciuq, la moiti^ dn nombre vouln. II y est dit auiisi que M. Nye, en
H'entretenant avec M. Hunt, second da Shenandoah, Ini avait appris que qnarante-denx
honmies i'lin'ut enrril<!^s h Mc^lhourne, que le capitaine Waddell avait refnsd an f^nver-
nenrle droit du vinite tandis qn'i<H certain nomhre de recruen 6taieni d hord. De Vaffidarit
de Temple, il msnlte certain ddtail des hommes qui Heraient venns a bonl du Shenan-
doah, Bortaiit de pliisieurs navires capturtis dans les niers Arctiques. Lour uoiubre
seruit de vinjjt-six, cpii, se joij^naut aux ciuquaute-trois, Equipage prdsuni^ du Shenan-
doah quittant Melbourne, et en ajoutant lesoillciers an nombre de cinq nan te-sept, don-
nerait un total de cent treiite-trtns, correnpoudant au chitfre indiqu^ par Temple, sous
la d<^ductioii de deux hommes morts en mer.
La personne du t^^moin a snbi, i^ la v(^rit(5, de tr^^grandB reproches, raais dans la
lettre de M. Hull h M. Bateson, on trouve ni(i formellemeut, au ncmi du capitaine
Waddell, plusieurs des assertions tie Temple, sans qn'on y parle de la liste de requipaf^e,
qui HK^ritait, sans cloute, uue attention spc^ciale, et qui, eei>endant, nVst point contestee.
Lonl Clan'udon, lui-meme, dans sa lettre a M. Adams du 19 Janvier IriiiG, tandis qu'il
examine la porti^'c de (|[uel<pies indications de la liste de Temple, ue fait aucnue obser-
vation quant li IVxa^'titude des chittVes.
Les otticiers Ic^^aux de la couronne, eux-m^mes, dans lenr avis dn 28 mars 1866, tout
en refusant d'ajouter foi g<?neriquement aux atiirmations de Temple, nMutinneiit )>oint
Bp<^cialement sa liste. lis paraissent croire qu'aucuue des nersonues k bord da
Shenandoah ne s'est rendue coupable d'aetious {Kiuvant donner lieu ^ dea poursuitea
judiciaires, et lis conseillent de laisser tomber Tafiaire.
•
* American Appendix, vol. til, pp. 501, 502.
OPINIONS OP COUNT SCLOPIS. 89
I will sammarize the principal docnments relative to the violation of
neutrality.
At Meibonrne, the aathorities believed generally that the neutrality
had been violated by Captain Waddell. The attorney-general of the
colony, in his report of the 14 th of February, 1865,* expressed, as I
think, a very sensible opinion, in declaring that the exemption which
Waddell claimed was inadmissible.
The governor had adopted this opinion while awaiting instrnctions
from London.f The legal advisers of the Crown,' in their opinion of
the 2Lsfc of April of the same year, approved the conduct of the gov-
ernor at Melbourne. That high officer had, in fact, finally formed a
correct idea of the whole case, when, writing to the governors of the
the colonies of Australia and New Zealand, in a dispatch of the 27th
of February, 1865,f be declared that there was no doubt, from the in-
formation he had collected, that the neutrality had been Jkigrantly violated
hy the commander of the Slienandoah.
Finally, almost on the same day on which the law-officers of the Crown
reported that the case of the Shenandoah might be allowed to drop,
the governor at Melbourne, writing to Mr. Cardwell, repeated to him
that he believed the neutrality had been flagrantly violated by Captain
Waddell ; and that he had read without surprise, though with deep re-
gret, the list furnished by Mr. Temple, which he looked upon as furnish-
ing' evidence in support of his opinion. §
Lastly, in the observations which Sir Roundell Palmer, Her Britan-
nic Majesty's counsel, submitted to the tribunal, on the 21st of August,
I read that there is no doubt that a shipment of men was effected dur-
ing the night of the 17th of February, at the moment the Shenandoah
was leaving.
In presence of so imposing a mass of declarations emanating from
the British authorities at Melbourne, in view of numerical calculations,
• Je r^samo les documents principanx relatifs k la violation de neutrality.
A Melbonrne les antorit<Ss crureut g^n6ralement que la neutralit<$ avait ^t^ viol^e
par le capitaiue Waddell. L'attomey-general de la colonie, dans son avis du 14
icvrier ISSo, avait 6niis un vote fort seus^, h, mon avis, en declarant que l'exemi)tioQ
doQt Waddell pr^tendait joair n'6tait point admissible.
Le gouvemear s'^tait ralli^ ^ cette opinion en attendant les instrnctions de Loudres.
Les coDseiilers l<$gaux de la couronne, par leur avis du 21 avril de la m^me ann^e,
approav^rent la coudiiite du gouverneur de Melbourne. Oe hant fonctionnaire s'^tait
611 effet ^ la fin form^ une id6e juste.de I'ensemble de I'affaire lorsqu'en s'adressant
aax gouvemenrs des colonies de rAustralie et de la Nouvelle-Zt^iande, dans une
rtoi»6che du 27 fevrier 1865, il d^clara u'y avoir point de doute, d'apres les renseigne-
nients qn'il avait recueillis, que la neutraliuS avait 4:4 notoirement viol^ par le commandant
du Skenaniloah.
Enfin, presf)ne an mdme jour oh les conseillers l^gaux de la couronne opinaient
jM>nr qu'on laissdt tomber I'affaire du Shenandoah, le gouverneur de Melbourne, en
i^adressant i^ M. Cardwell, lui repiStait qu'il croyait cfue la neutralit6 avait 6t6 notoire-
pient riolee par le capitaine Wiiddell, et qu^il avait hi sans surprise, quoicpie aveo
•loHleur, la liste fournie par M. Temple, qu^il considdrait comme une preuve a I'appui de
»<)» opinion.
Eutiu, dans les observations que Sir Roundell Palmer, conseil de sa Maje8t<5 britan-
niqiie, soamit an tribunal dans la 8(^ance du 21 ao(it, on lit : n^v avoir aucuu doute
'lu'il s'opdra enibarqucment d'hommes dans la uuit du 17 fdvrier au moment oti
le Shenandoah allait p&rtir.
£u presence d'une masse si imposante de declarations ^man^es des antorit<Ss
aoglaises de Melbourne, en vue de calculs numdriques qui, s'ils n'atteignent pas le
* Appendix to the British Case, vol. i, p. 549.
t Ibid., p. 550.
t BritisQ Appendix, vol. i, p. 565.
$ Ibid., p. 722.
90 ARBITRATION AT GENEVA.
which, if they do not attain the last degree of precision, still leave no
doubt but that Captain Waddell did actually enlist men at Melbourne,
and afterward ship them on board the Shenandoah, for his expedition
against the whalers, I no longer hesitate to recognize the responsibility
of Great Britain toward the Government of the CTnit^d States.
As to the supply of coal in so large a quantity as that which the vessel
received from Liverpool, in addition to that with which she was already
furnished, it can only be regarded as .a preparation for hostile expedi-
tious against the commerce of the United States, and this falls precisely
within the scope of the second rule of Article VI of the treaty.
VI. — THE FLORIDA olidS ORETO.
Availing myself of the liberty which each arbitrator has reserved to
himself of giving to the expression of his opinion on the de-
cision of the case, snch form as may appear to him most
convenient, I will abstain from following in detail here all the phases of
the career of the vessel Florida. For this, as a whole, I refer to the vo-
luminous documents which have been communicated to us, and which
have furnished matter for three separate statements by the parties. I
am not the less obliged, however, to my honorable colleagues who have
spoken before me, for the statements they have made to us of the series
of events which have led them to form a judgment, not, indeed, as yet
irrevocable, but still strongly defined as the final result of tlieir investi-
gations.
I will confine myself, then, for my part, toinformingyou of the points of
fact which have had most influence in fixing my convictions on the subject-
matter of the questions which we h«ve to decide, convictions which may
no doubt be modified in consequence <»f an interchange of opinions with
you, but which, for the moment, seem to me to be supported both by
facts and principles.
It does not seem to me to be very necessary to dilate much on the first
part of the career of the Florida, since, during that period, this vessel nei-
ther made any captures, nor iissisted in any way the operations of the
dernier deprr^ de precision, ne laissent cependant ancno doate que le capitaine Wad-
deU a effeotivemeut racoM ii Melbourne des homines et les a eusuito eiubarqit^j) aa
bord du Sbenaudoabf pour son expedition coutre Ics baleiniers, je n'b^-sito plus k
reconnaitre que la re-Bponsabilit^ du gouverneiuent britannique est engage envers le
Gouverneiuent des I^tats-Unis.
Quant ^ rapprovisionueinent de cbarbon dans une quantitd aussi forte que celle
qu'il re^ut de Liverpool, en augmentation de celui dont 11 dtait d6jk foumi, on ne
peut qne I'envisager corame un pr^paratif pour des expMitions hostiles an commerce
des fitats-Unis, et cela tombe pr6cis6ment sous la deuxi^me r^gle de I'artide VI du
traits.
LE FLORIDA, ALIAS ORKTO.
En me servant de la liberty que chacun des arbitres s'est T6aeT\6e de donner h I'ex-
pression de son opinion sur la decision de la cause telle forme qui lui paraltrait plus
convenable, je m'abstiendrai de suivre ici on di^tail toutes les phases de la can*i^ix^ par-
courue par le vaisseau le Florida. Je m'en rapport« pour Tensemble anx volumiueux
documents qui nous ont ^t^ communiquds, et qui ont par trois fois fourni matiere aiix
dires des parties. Je ne suis ponrtant pas moins oblig<5 aux honorables colR'gnes qui
ni'ont pT6c^d6 en prenant la x>arole des exposes quMls nous ont faits de la siSrie dos
4Sv6nemeBts qui les ont conduits h asseoir un jugement, certes pas encore irrevocable,
mais d6jh toutefois tr^fonde sur les derniers rdsultats de leurs investigations.
Je me bornerai done, pour ma part, k vous fairo connattro les points en fait qni ont
eu le plus dMnfluence h dtablir mes convictions sur le fond des questions que nona avons
^ juger, convictions qni pourront bien so modifier par la suite de Pechange de vos iddes,
mais qui, pour le moment, me paraissent appny^es en fait et en droit.
II ne me semble pas tout ii fait n^cessaire de s'^tendre beaucoup sur la premi^^e partie
de la carri5re du Florida, puisque duraut cet espace de temps oe vaisseau n'a ni fait de
OPINIONS OF COUNT SCLOPIS. 91
confederates. It is suflScient to state that tbis vessel was built in Eng-
laud, that from the first she was the object of representations addressed
bj the United States minister in London to the British government, and
that the latter, with the exception of "Some inquiries which it instituted
as to the real destination of the vessel, made no great effort to prevent her
departure. It is also proved that if this ship was not actually a vessel of
war, she was, at all events, capable of becoming one at any moment,
and that she was registered as an. English vessel, and manned by a crew
almost entirely composed of British subjects.
It is denied that the Florida was equipped for war at the time she
left the waters of Great Britfiin, but it results from a report of the offi-
cers of the Greyhound, a vessel of the royal navy of Her Britannic
Majesty, that on her arrival at Nassau, the Florida had a complete war-
like equipment, and that all that was wanting on board of her were mu-
nitions of war. It further appears that the captain of the vessel, when
fonnallv ami solemnly interrogated in the presence of three of his otii-
cers, and of the officers of the Greyhound, whether the vessel was al-
ready thus fitted on leaving Liverpool, replied, "Yes, in all respects;
and no alteration or addition had been made whatever."
It is on her arrival at Nassau that the true character of the vessel
and the consequences of her real destination stand forth.
I must refer to another clear and complete declaration of the same
captain commanding the Greyhound. This document seems to me most
conclusive as to the moral aspect of the case. Captain Hickley does
not hesitate for a moment to ask the governor of Nassau to seize the
vessel.
When an officer of this rank and experience says that, in the present
condition of the Florida, his professional opinion is that, " with her crew,
i;:uns, arms, and ammunition, going out with another vessel alongside
of her, she could be equipi)ed in twenty-four hours for battle,'^ all my
doubts disappear, and I become convinced of the immediate intentions^
of the vessel.
captures, ni donn<$ aacnn appui aux operations des conf^d^r^s. H me snffit de constater
que ce vaisseau a 616 construit en Angleterre, que Aha les premiers juars il a 6t6 I'objet
des avertiKsemeDts adress^s par le uiinistre des £tats-Unis4 Londres an gouverneiiienfc
britanuiqne, sans qne celui-ci, h, part quelqnes renseignenient« qu'il a demand^s sur la
veritable destination du navire, se soit beaucoup occupy d'en empecher la sortie. II esi
^galeiuent constats que, si ce vaisseau n'avait point ractualit^ d'un b^timent degnerre,
il avait du moius la capacity de devenir tel ii nn moment donnd, et qu'il a 6t6 enregistr^
eomuie hm navire anglais et mout^ par un Equipage presque enti^rement compos<S de .
8uj«*t« britanniques.
On couteste Fappareil de guerre du Florida h I'i^poquo oh il sortit des eanx de la
Grande-Bretagne ; mais il r^sulte d*un rapport des ofiiciers du Greyhound, vaisseau de
la marine royal»^ des a Majest4$ britanuique, qu'^ son arriv^e h Nassau le Florida avait
un complet appareil de guerre, et que seulcnient il manquait des munitions de guerre ik
Hou bord. 11 r^sulte de plus que le capitaine de ce navire, formellemeut et solennelle-
ment int-errogd en pr^^euce de trois de scs officiers et des ofiiciers du Greyhound, si en
quittant Liverpool le navire ^tait d^jii dans cet appareil, r^pondit : "Fe«, in all re^pecU;
atfd no alttralion or addition had been made whatever."
C'e^t ^ son arriv6e ^ Nassau que le caract^re propre de ce vaisseau et les consequences
de ssk veritable destination se dessinent.
II faut que je revieune sur une autre declaration claire et complete du m^me capi-
taine, commandant le Greyhound. Ce document me semble le plus couvainquaut pour
la moral ite de la chose. Le capitaine Hickley n'hesite pas un moment ^ demander au
gonvernenr de Nassau la saisie du navire.
Lorsqii^on officier de ce grade et de cette experience dit que, dans la condition actu-
elle du Florida, son opinion professionnelle est '' qu'avec son equipage, ses canons, ses
armes «t ses munitions, s'il est accompagne d'un autre vaisseau, it pent dtre pr^t ^ livrer
bataille dans vingt-quatre heures,'' tons mes doutes disparaissent, et la certitude se fait
eu moi des desseios imrnddiats de ce b4timeut.
92 ARBITRATION AT GENEVA.
The situation of Nassau, which became an asylum of protection for
the Florida, increases in my view the responsibility of England. Lord
Kussell did not hesitate to tell Mr. Adams, in a letter given at page 714
of the iirst volume of the Appenctix to the Oase of the United States,
that '^ Nassau is a position from which, on the one hand, confederate
privateers might have greatly annoyed the commerce of the United
States, and which, on the other hand, might have been a convenient
base of operations for the UuitM States Navy."
Under these circumstances, did it not become the imperative duty of
England to take care that all the duties of the most scrupulous neu-
trality were fulfilled ?
It is true that the vice-admiralty court of the Bahamas, by its judg-
ment, which is given at page 521 of the fifth volume of the Appendix
to the American Case, acquitted the.Florida of every charge ; but, while
respecting the authority of the res judicata^ I ask whether it is possible
to deduce from this an argument on which to found a moral conviction
that the English government is released from its responsibility under
the rules laid down in Article VI of the treaty of Washington! I ab-
stain from repeating the considerations into which my honorable col-
leagues who have preceded me have entered on this subject.
It is not the question of special legal responsibility with which we
have here to deal, but rather that of the respcmsibility which results
from the principles of international law, and the moral conviction at
which we have arrived in consequence of the acts imputed to the Floritia.
This conviction is strengthened by a consideration of the terms of the
conclusion of the judgment of the vice-admiralty court, where it is said,
" that all the circumstances of the case taken together seem sufiicient
to justify strong suspicion that an attempt was being made to infringe
that neutrality so wisely determined upon by Her Majestj^'s government."
The decision of the vice-admiralty court may then be considered as
^conclusive, even if not perfe(;tly correct, as between those who claimed
the vessel and the British government, which claimed its confiscation
La situation de Nassan, qni devint I'asile protectenr du Florida, angmcnte k me%
yeux la reHponsabilit^^ de TAagleterre. Lord Russell u'lK^sitait pas i\ dire ^ M. Adams,
dans nne lettre, cit-^e h la page 714 du premier volume de I'appeudice au " Case" des
£tats-Uui8, <|ue *' Nassau e-st une position de laqnelle d'nn c6t^ les corsaires conf^l^re^
ont pu porter un grand trouble dans le commerce des £tat8-Unis, et qni d*un autre
c6t^ a pn fournir une bade d'op<^ration couvenablo pour les forces maritimes des IHtats-
Unis.
. Ces circonstances donn<^es, n'<^t:iit-il pas nn devoir rigonreux pour TAnglet^rre de
veiller k ce que tons les devoirs de la plus scnipiilense nftatralit<5 fiissent remplis ?
II est vrai que la cour de la vice-aiuiraut<5 cle Hahaina par son jugf*nieut. qu'on lit
Ik la page 521 du cinquieme volume de I'appendice an "Case" ani6ricain, a acqnitt<^ le
Florida de toute accusation ; mais tout en respeotant rautorit<? de la chose juu^^e, jc
deniaude si on pent iiidiiirede lii un argument solidedf conviction morale, qui dccharsc
le gouverncment anglais de sa resp<iii85lbilit45 d'aprc«« les n^gles <!»tablies k Tartide VI
du trait<^ de Washington. Je m'abstiens de rc^pi^ter les d^veloppements que les hono-
rables coUegues qui ni'ont pn^ct'^ile n<mrt ont fonrnis :i ce sujet.
Ce u'est point de la rcsponsabilit^'^ juridi<iue spi^ciale que nous avous ^ nons occn-
per ici ; cVst bien ]dutdt de la rcsponsabilittS qui derive des principes du droit dv*
gens ; c'cst de la conviction morale que nous avons actpiise par la suite des faits imputes
an Florida.
Cette conviction s'accroU en con8id<^rant les terraes de la conclusion du jugement de
la cour de vice-amiraut<^, ou il est dit " que I'enseinble des circonstances de la cause
est do nature li justitier de fortes prenomptions qu'une tentative d'iufraction k la uen-
tralit6, si sagcment admise en principe par le gouvernement de sa Majest^S, dtait en
▼oie d'ex^ntiou.''
La decision de la cour de vice-amirant^ peat done 6tre consid^ri^ comme con-
cluante, si ce n'est comme parfaitement juste, entre ceux qui r^lamaient le navire et
Ib gouvernement britaunique, qui en demandait la confiscatiou d'apr^ les claoses da
OPINIONS OF COUNT SCLOPIS. 93
under the clauses of the foreign-enlistment act; but I do not think it is
sufficient to bar the claim of the United States against Great Britain.
The United States were not parties to the suit; everything relating to
it is for them res inter alios acta.
As to the proceedings of the Florida, knowingly permitted, if not
favored by the British government, as represented by the Government
of the United States, the same British government declares, at page 78
of its Counter Case, "that it has not the means of verifying or disprov-
ing the truth of this statement. Assuming it to be true, there can be
uo doubt that a violation of the sovereignty and neutral rights of Great
Britain was committed by the commander of the Florida. But the fact
of such a violation having occurred does not argue negligence on the
part of Her Majesty's government."
The conduct of the commander and crew of the Florida, after she was
released, justifies, and more than justifies, all the suspicions that had
been entertained as to the true character of her voyage.
As to what passed between that vessel and the schooner Prince Alfred
for the purpose of arming the former, the numerous affidavits given iu
the sixth volume of the American Appendix offer irrefutable evidence
of the acts imputed to the Florida.
It is thus eiuiily understood why the Florida, while equipped for war
on her arrival at Nassau, had not, as I have mentioned, any munitions
of war on board. It was because she expected them by the Prince Al-
fred, at the spot agreed on beforehand for the scene of her operations.
Supplies of coal play a considerable part in the charges brought against
the Florida. The American Case says that, during a stay of thirty-six
hours in the port of Nassau, she took iu a sufficient quantity for three
months^ navigation. I must not, however, omit to observe that the
statemeut of the quantity of coal is derived only from the affidavit of
John Demeritt, a laborer who had worked at putting the coal on board,
aud who says that the quantity might be one hundred and eighty tons,,
an excessive quantity in the opinion of the United States Government.
foreign^Mlutment acty mais je ne pense pas qu'eUe suffise pour d^bonter lea £tat8-UniB
de lears pretentions envers le gonveruement anglais. Les ^tats-Unis n'dtaient point
60 cause ; tout ce qui tient ^ ce proc^ est pour eux re8 intei' alios acta,
Qoant aux er|*emeuts du Florida, tol6rl^s sciemniont, si ce n'est favorisds par le
goQvemeuieut britannique, tels que les repr^aenta le Gouvernement des £tats-Uuis, le
meoie gouvemenient britannique d^clara, t\ la page 78 de son ''Counter-case/' '*qu'il
n'a pas les moyens, soit de v6ritier, soit de coutester la \6nt6 de ce que Ton avance.
Tout en admettant que cela soit vrai, il ne pent, '^dit-il/'y avoir de doutes qu^une viola-
tion de la souverainet^ et des droits de neutrality delaGrande-Bretagne a dt^commise.
Mais du fait que cette violation a eu lieu, on ne pent pas arguer qu'il y ait eu de la
negligence de la part du gouvernement de sa Majesty.''
La conduite du commandant et de r<Squipage du Florida, apr^s qu'il fut rel&ch6,
JQstifie, et au-del4, tons les soupgons qu'on avait con^us sur le caract^re veritable de
son expedition.
Quaot ii ce qui se passa entre ce vaissean et la goelette Prince Alfred pour
rarmementdu premier, les nombreux affidavits relatds au sixiMue volume de Pappen-
dice am^ricain peuvent servir de preuve irrecusable des faits imputes au Florida.
On s*explique aiusi facilemeut pourquoi le Florida, tout eu etant en appareil de
guerre ^ sou arriv^e ^ Nassau, n'avait pas, ainsi que je Tai note, des munitions de
guerre ii son bord ; c'est qu'il en att«ndait par le Prince Alfred, ^ Fendroit con vena
dS'eaoce pour devenir le theatre de ses operations.
Lefl cbargements de charbon jonent un r61e considerable dans les imputations faites
au Florida. Le *^ Case^ amedcain dit que, pendant un sejour de trente>six beures dans
le port de Nassau, il en chargea une quantite sufiisaute pour trois mois de navigation.
Je oe dois point omettre toutefois de faire observer que I'indication de la quantite de
charbon ne resulto que de Vaffidavil de John Demeritt, un onvrier qui avait travailie
pour le chargement du charbon, et qui dit que la quantite pouvait en Stre de 180
touneSy quantite exuberaute au jugemeut da Gouvernement des £tats-Unis.
94 ARBITRATION AT GENEVA.
That Government asserts that the governor of Nassau, who allowed
these facilities to the Florida, had only granted to the Federal vessel
Dakota ])ermission to take in a much smaller supply of coal. The Eng-
lish government shows the unfounded character of this charge, declar-
ing that the governor of Nassau had no instructions which forbade him
to grant permission to take more coal, and that it was the commander
of the Dakota who did not choose to take more.
Shortly afterward the Florida again took on board about one hundred
tons of coal in the port of Barbados. The complaints made on this
point by Rear- Admiral Wilkes only elicited an evasive answer from the
governor of the island.
The United States call uiwn the British government to prove that it
is not in fault with regard to the facilities granted to the Florida while
that vessel was in the territorial wat€»rs of the Hnglish colonies.
Here, then, would be a case for the application of the second rule of
Article VI of the treaty of Washington, taking all the resources which
the Florida obtained at Nassau, Bermuda, and Barbados as equivalent
to the use of a base of naval oi)erations which enabled her to make prize
of fourteen vessels. Her devastations did not end there ; several other
vessels of the mercantile navy of the United States became her pi*ey,
until she terminated her career at Bahia on the 7th October, 1804.
It seems to be sufficiently proved that the facility with which the
Florida was allowed to supply herself with coal, notwithstanding that
the English government had prohibited the formation of depots of this
article in those colonies, was not in conformitv with the strict neutrality
which should have been observed in these latitudes, whether in view of
the nature of the localities or of the sympathy which the population of
those same colonies showed for the confederate cause.
To these precise data are added a class of facts more difficult to ascer-
tain, such as too easy compliance on the part of the English government
in allowing the time requested for repairing and refitting to be pro-
longed at the will of the commander of the vessel, beyond w^hat the real
Ce Gouvemeraent pretend que le fronvernonr de Nasaan, qni perniettait ces largesses
an Florida, u'avait aceord<^ an vaisMcaii t<^<l«^ral 1« Dacotah la permission do chartjer du
cliarbon qne dans une proportion fort inferienre. Le gonvernenient anglais fait
ri'8sortir U*. pen de 8olidit<^ de ce chef d'aocnsntion en asNnrant que le ^onvernenr de
Na8.san n^avait ancnne instrnction qni Ini d^'fendlt d'accorder la facnlt<^ de prendre
phiM de charbon, ct qne c^est le commandant dn Dacotah qni u'en a pas voala
da vantage.
Pen de temps aprea, le Florida chargea encore, dans la rade des Barbades, environ
cent tonnes de charbon. Les plain tes sonlev^^es ^ cet <5gard par le coutre-amiral
Wilkes n'obtiurent dn gonvernenient de I'ile qirnuer^pouse Evasive.
Les Etats-Unisdemandent qne legouverneinent anglais prouve qnMl n^y a pae en de
sa fante dans les facilit^^s accord<5es an Florida pendant qne ce vaissean ^tait dans les
eanx territoriales des colonies anglaises.
11 s'agirait done d'appliqnor la denxi^me regie de Particle VI dn trait<^ de "Wash-
ington en con8itl<?raiit toutes les ressonrces qne le Florida trouvait i\ Nassan, anx Ber-
nindes et anx Barbades conmie Tnsage d'uiie base d*op<5rations navalesqni Ini valurent
qnatorze prises de vaisseanx. Les ddvastations ne se born^rent point 14; plnsienrs
autres vaisseanx de la marine coromer^ante des l^tats-Unis devinrent sa proie, jusqu*^
ce que ce vaissean acheva sa carri^re de croisenr h Bahia, le 7 octobre 18(>4.
II paralt assez prouv^ que la facilit<^ avec laqnelle on laissa le Florida s'approvision-
ner de charbon, malgr^ qnMl y e(it defense de la part da gonvernement anglais d'^ta*
blir des d<^p6ts de cette mati^re dans ces colonies, ne r6pondait pas h la stricte neatra-
litd qn*il aurait fallu observer dans ces parages, soit en vne des locality, soit i^ canse
des sympathies qne la population do ces m6mes colonies moutrait poor la cause des
coui6(\4r6H,
A ces donfa^ee precises viennent a'ajouter des reclamations d'nn genre de faits plus
dittlcile & constater, tels qne le trop de condtvicendance du gonvernenient anglais i
tol^rer que le temps demand^ pour prociSder ii des r6parationB et & des radoubs se pro>
OPINIONS OF COUNT SCLOPIS. 95
necessity of the case required. It cannot but be acknowledged, how-
ever, that the field which the Florida had chosen for her depredations
offered special circumstances to insure her success.
As to the stay of the Florida in the port of Mobile, and the conse-
quences resulting therefrom, I shall confine myself to considering them
avS a special proof of the decisive character of the career of the Florida,
and I adopt on this subject the answers to the objections raised by Great
Britain, contained in paragraph 25 of the observations of our honora-
ble colleague, M. Staempfli. I reserve to myself expressly to treat the
qaestion relative to the effect which may be produced by the transfor-
mation of a privateer into a vessel of war of a belligerent, when that sub-
ject, which is to be considered generally, comes before us for discussion.
I refrain from attaching to the British government any very serious
blame for the official salute returned by the authorities of Bermuda to
the salute of the Florida on her entry into that port ; this may have
been the personal fault at the moment of an official of subordinate rank,
but r maintain that, in matters of habitual administration, and in what
relates to the execution of special regulations, the responsibility for acts
• of all subordinate agents, in question!^ of controversy between two gov-
ernments, must attach to those who are charged with the supreme gov-
ernment.
Considering the tenders as corps detached from a corps (Varmee^ and
consef|neutly as subject to the same responsibility as the principal ves-
sel, that responsibility must be extended to the cases of the Clarence,
Tacony, and Archer, which served successively^ as tenders to the Florida,
1 will conclude the series of opinions which I submit to my honorable
colleagues by a quotation which appears to me to have decisive weight.
Lord Kusseli, in a dispatch to Lord Lyons of the 27th March, 1803, re-
porting a conversation which he had had with Mr. Adams, expresses
bimself in these terms : ^' I said that the cabinet was of opinion that
the law was sufficient, but that legal evidence could not always be pro-
longeiit an gr^ dn commandant du navire au deh\ de ce quo le veritable besoin aurait
exi;;e. On ne sanrait toutefois uo pas rt'connaltro que le champ que le Florida avait
ciioisi pour faire ses ravages rduuissalt des ^lemcuts spdciuux pour lui assurer des
Qiiant an s^^onr du Florida dans le port de Mobile et aux coust^queuces qui purent
endpriver, je me bornerai i les consid«5rer couime une preuve spi^ciule du caract^re
<lt'i.iMif de la ca^^i^^e du Florida, et j'swlopte b, ce snjet les rdjionses couteuues sous le N**
25dfs observations de uotre honorable colIe;;ue, M. Staempili, aux objections faites par
U Grande-Bretagne. Je me reserve expresses men t de traiter la questiou relative a I'effet
que pent produire la transformation d'un corsaire en vaissean de guerre d^ln belligd-
raut, lorsque cette matiere, qui doit etre consider^e sous un point de vue g^n^ral, eu-
tn-ra en discussion parmi nous.
Je m^abstieudrai d'inculper trop gravement le gouvemement britaunique du salut
officiel rendu par les autorit^s de liennude au salut du Florida entrant dans le port;
cela pf ut <>tre la faute personnelle momentan(;e d^in employ^ d\in ordre int(6rienr, mais
j^ maintiens que dans les attaires d'administration habituelle et dans ce qui tient ti
lVxi5r'ution tie rfeglements spdciaux, la responsabiliti? des faits de tons les agents subiil-
t*TDe8, loreiqu'il s'agit de controverse entro deux (Stats, doit remonter a ceux qui tieu-
neijt le gouvernemeut suixSrieur.
Ed coiisid^raut les tenders corarae des corps d<^tacb<5s d'un corps d'arm^e, et constf-
quemnieut sujets f^ la meme responsabilit<5 du vaisseau principal, on devra r<5tendre
aux cas du Clarence, du Tacony et de PArcher, qui out servi successivemeut d*all<^ge8
aa Florida.
Je fiuirai la s^rie d'appr6ciations que je soumets k mes honorables collogues par une
citation qui ine parait d'un poids d^oisif. Lord Russell, dans une d<5pAcbe k Lord Lyons
du '£7 man) 18()3, en rapportant une conversation qu'il avait cue avcc M. Adams, s'eK-
prime en ce« termes: "Je lui ai dit que le cabinet dtait d'opiuion que la loi su^sait,
mais qa'oQ n'avait pas pa toujoors apx)orter des preuves legates; que ie gouvemement
96 ARBITRATION AT GENEVA.
cured, that the British government had done everything in its power to
execute the law ; but I admitted that the cases ot the Alabama aud
Oreto were a scandal, and in some degree a reproach to our laws."
We have now, in my opinion, to repair the effects produced by tlie
causes of that scandal and that reproach, no longer taking as our poiut
of depsirture the provisions of a municipal law, but the principles of in-
ternational law, and the rules laid down in Article VI of the treaty.
Great Britain thereby becomes responsible.
Having acquired a complete knowledge of the points of fact and law,
we shall now proceed to the examination of each head of claims consid-
ered separately, and to the comparative analysis of the figures contained
in the revised list of claims presented by the Department of State of
the United States, and those contained in the two reports of the com-
mittee appointed by the board of trade which have been presented by
the British government.
OPINIOIS^S OF VISCOUNT D'ITAJUBA .
I. — THE SPECIAL QUESTION AS TO THE EFFECT OF THE C0:MMTSSI0>'S
HELD BY THE CONFEDERATE VESSELS OF WAR VITHICH ENTERED
BRITISH PORTS.
Sitting of the 25th of July.
The object of the special question submitted for the decision of the
Effect of .c.tr.mi»- tribunal of arbitration is, to determine the extent of the
*'""^ effect which can be attributed to the commission with which
a vessel of war may be provided; whether that effect is the same in the
case of a vessel built in conformity with the laws of neutrality, as in that
of a vessel built in violation of those laws ; that is to say, whether the
fact of holding such a commission gives to a vessel built in violation of
de la Grande-Brotap^e avait fait tont ce qui ^tait en son ponvoir pour ex6cnter la loi,
maia que je reconnaiHsuis que les cas de I'Alabama et de TOreto avaient 6t6 nu scaodale,
et eu quelque degrd un reproche si noa lois.''
II s'a^it maintenant, & uion avis, de r^parer les effets produits par les canses de ce
scandale et de ce reproche en ne partant plus des dispositious d'un droit municipal,
inais devS principes du droit des gens, et des r^gle8 poshes ^ Tarticle YI du trait6. La
responsabilit^S de la Grande-Bretagne y est engagi^o.
Bien (l^diHds sur les points de tait et de droit, nous allons proc<$der h I'exanien de
chaque chef de rdclamations consid6r6 8<^par6nieut, ot h Tanalyse comparative d^ cbif-
Ires port<^s sur la liste r^vis^o des reclamations produite par le D<5partement d*<Stat des
Etats-Unis, et de ceux port^ sur les deux rapi)orts de la commission nomm^ par le
conseil de commerce produits par le gouvernement britannique.
La question 9p4cial€ de savair quel a 6te Vejfet des commissions possMdes par les navires de
guerre confideris qui sont entris dans les ports hritanniques.
Stance du 25 juillet.
La question sp^ciale sonmise h la decision du tribunal d'arbitrage a pour bnt de
d6 terminer T^tendue que Ton pent accorder h I'effet de la commission dont un navire
d^ guerre se trouve pourvu ; si cet effet est le m6me pour un navire constmit en obser-
vation des lois de la neutrality que pour un navire constmit en violation de cea lots-
c'est-sVdire, si, par le fait de posscder une commission, un navire, constmit en violation
des lois d'un ^tat neutre, a le droit d'exiger de cet <Stat d'6tre traii6 dans ses porta de la
• OPINIONS OF VISCOUNT d'iTAJUBA. 97
the laws of a neutral state the right of requiring of such state that it
sbonld be treated in its ports in the same manner as any other vessel of
war belonging to a belligerent state, and built according to law.
The question, put in this form, answers itself.
In fact, a neutral wishing to preserve his neutrality is bound to abstain
from assisting either of the belligerent parties in their warlike operations;
he is bound faithfully to guard against vessels of war, destined for the
Qse of one of the belligerents, being built or equipped within his territory ;
and, according to the latter part of the first rule of Article VI of the
treaty of Washington, he is bound " also to use due diligence to prevent
the departure from his jurisdiction of any vessel intended to cruise or
carry on war as above, such vessel harving been specially adapted, in
whole or in part, within such jurisdiction, to warlike use."
Such being the duties of a neutral, he has per contra the right to re-
qaire the belligerents to respect his territory; and it is the duty of the
belligerents not to commit, within the territory of the neutral state, acts
contrary to that neutrality. It U only by a scrupulous observance of
this duty that belligerents acq aire the indisputable rightof exacting from
the neutral perfect impartiM.ity.
If, then, a vessel, built on neutral territory for the use of a belligerent,
frandnlently, and without the knowledge of the neutral, comes again
within the jurisdiction of the sovereign whose neutrality it has violated,
it ought to be seized and detained; for it is impossible to allow to such
vessel the same exterritorial rights as are allowed to other belligerent
vessels of war, built in accordance with law and without any infraction
of neutrality. The commission with which such a vessel is provided is
iusnfficient to protect her as against the neutral whose neutrality she
has violated.
And how can the belligerent complain of the application of this
principle f By seizing or detaining the vessel the neutral only prevents
the belligerent from deriving advantage from the fraud committed
within his territory by the same belligerent; while by not proceeding
meme niaiii^re que toat autre navire de guerre appartenent a des ^tats bellig^rants
et r^gnH^reineut constrnit.
La posit iou de la question en ces termes porte sa r^ponse en ene-m^nio.
£n effet, le neutre qui veut garuiitir sa neutrality aoit s'abstenir d'aider aucune des
parties beilig^rantes dans leurs operations de guerre ; il est obligd de veiller fid^e-
ment a ce que, stir son territoire, on ne construise ni n'arme des navires de guerre des-
tioea k Tune des parties bellig^rantes ; et selon la derni^re partie de la premiere r^gle
de Tarticle VI du traits de Washington, il est oblig^ '* d'employer 6galenient les dues
diligences pour etnp^cher le dispart hors de sa juridiction de tout navire destind k
croi^r on tk faire la guerre, couiine il est dit ci-diMSsus, un tel navire ayaut ^t^ adapts
Hpeeialement, en tout on en partie, dans les limites do sa juridiction, h un eniploi
giierrier."
81 tels sent les devoirs d'un neutre, il a par centre le droit d'exiger des bellig6rants
qa'ils respectent son tefritoire; et il est du devoir des bellig<Srants de ne point cora-
mettre, sur le t-erritoire de I'^tat neutre, des actes contraires a cette neutrality. Ce
D*e8t qu'en observant scrnpnleuscment ce devoir que les bellig^rants acqui^rent le droit
iueontestable d'exiger du neutre une parfaite impartiality.
Si done an navire, construit pour le compte d'un bellig^rant sur M territoire d'nn
que
aotres navires de guerre bellig^rants, coustrnits r<^gulierenient et en dehors de toute
infraction & la nentralitd. La commission dont un tol navire est pourvu no suffit pas
pfiar le convrir vis-i^-vis du neutre dont il a viol^ la neutrality.
Et comment le bellig^rant se plaindrait-il de rapplication de ce principe f En saisis-
»ant on d^tenant le navire, le neutre ne fait qu'emp^her le belligdrant de tirer profit
de la fraude commise sur son territolro par ce mdme bellig^rant, tandis que, en ne
7 B
98 ARBITRATION AT GENEVA.
against a guilty vessel, tlie neutral justly exposes itself to having its
good faith justly called in question by the other belligerent.
This principle of seizure, of detention, or at any rate of preliminary
notice that a vessel, under such circumstances, will not be received in
the ports of the neutral whose neutrality she has violated, is fair aud
salutary, inasmuch as it is calculated to prevent complications betweeu
neutrals an<l belligerents, and to contribute toward freeing neutrals
from responsibility by proving their good faith in the case of a fraud
perpetrated within their territory.
The converse of this principle is repugnant to the moral sense, for it
would be allowing the fraudulent party to derive benefit from his fraud.
The rules established by the Empire of Brazil confirm the principle
which we have just laid down, ibr in its regulations respecting neutrality,
directions are given —
^ 6. Not to admit into the ports of the empire a boUigereut wbo has once violated
the neutrality ; and,
$7. To compel v/*88el8 which may attempt t(» violate the neutrality to leave the
maritime territory of the empire immediately, wittjout supplying them with anything
whatever.
In fine : the commission with which a vessel of war may be pro-
vided has not the power to protect her as against the neutral whose
neutrality she has previously violated.
II.— THE FLORIDA.
The undersigned, after a conscientious examination of all the docu-
ments submitted to the tribunal of arbitration by the Gov-
ernments of the United States and of Great Britain, relating
to the confederate cruiser the Florida,
Considering,
That from all the facts relating to the building of the Oreto* in the
port of Liverpool, and to the departure of that vessel, and of the Bahama,
Erocddaut point coutre le navire soupable, le neiitre s'expose jnstement i\ ceque I'autre
ellig6rant 8U8})ecte sa bonne foi.
Ce priucipe de saisi, de detention ou tout an moins d'avis pr6al<able qu'uu navire,
dans de teller conditions, no sera pas re^u dans les ports du neutre dout il a viol^ la
neutralit<^, est equitable et salntaire en ce quMl evite les complications entre lo« uentres
et les bellig(^ rants, ct contribue a d^gager la responsabilit^ des neutres en prouviint
leur bonne foi vis-sVvis d'une frande commise sur leur territoire.
Le priucipe contraire froisso la conscience, car ce serait permettre an fraudear dc
retirer b<^n<5tice de sa frande.
Les regies <Stablies par Pempire du Br<^sil cousacrent le priucipe que nous venous
d'exiK)ser, car dans ses r^glemeuts sur la neutrality il est ordonnd :
" $ 6. l)e ne pas admettre dans les ports de Pempire le bellig^rant qui aura iini*
fois viol6 la neutrality," et
" $ 7. De faire sortir imm<kliatement du territoire maritime deFempire, sans lenr
fouruir la moindro chose, les navires qui tenteraient de violer la neutrality."
£n r^Humd. La commission dont un navire de guerre se ti*onve ponrvu n^a pas ponr
efiet de la couvrir vis-i^-vis dn neutre dont il a prdc^demment voil6 la neutrality.
I.— LE FLORIDA.
Le Bonssignd — apr^s examen conseiencieux de tous les documents sonmis au tribnual
d'arbitrage par les gouverneroents des l^tats-Unis et de la Graude-Bretagne relatif»
au croiseuT conf6d6r6 le Florida :
Considdrant que de tons les faits relatifs ^ la construction de I'Oreto'dansle port de
LiverpoolyOt ^ la sortie de ce navire, ainsi que du Bahama, charge d'arraement poor
* First name of the Florida,
t Premier nom du Florida.
OPINIONS OF VISCOUNT d'iTAJUBA. 99
frei^rhted with arms for the Oreto, which facts did not induce the Brit-
ish authorities to employ any measures calculated to prevent the viola-
tiou of the neutrality of Great Britain, notwithstanding the rei)eated
warnings and representations of thedii)loraatic and consular authorities
of the United States, it is evident that the government of Her Britannic
Majesty neglected to use due diligence for the fulfillment of its duties as
a neutral ;
Considering,
That from all the facts relating to the stay of the Oreto at Nassau, to
her seizure in that port, to her acquittal, to her departure from that
port, to the enlistment of a crew, to her taking in supplies, to her arma-
ment at Green Cay, with the assistance of the English vessel Prince
Ahred, it is evident that there was negligence on the part of the Eng-
lish colonial authorities;
Considering,
That in spite of the evident infractions, of the neutrality of Great
Britain committed by the Oreto, this same vessel, then known as a con-
federate cruiser, under the name of the Florida, was again on several
occasions freely a<lmitted into the ports of the British colonies ;
Considering,
That the fact of the entrance of the Florida into the confederate port
of Mobile, and of her stay of four months in that port, cannot deter-
mine tlie responsibility previously incurred by Great Britain ;
Is of opinion.
That Great Britain failed to fulfill the duties prescribed in the rules
laid down in Article VI of the treaty of Washington, and that she is
consequently responsible for the acts imputed to the confederate cruiser
Florida, as well as for those imputed to her tenders, the Clarence, the
Tacony, and the Archer.
III. — THE ALABAMA.
The undersigned, after a conscientious examination of all the docu-
ments submitted to the tribunal of arbitration by the Governments of
r0reto,IetKinel8 faitsn'ameiieront dela part des autoritds britanniquesl'emploi d'aiicunes
uiesiires propres ^ eDipechei* la violation de la neutrality do la Grande-Breta^ue,
nulgre led avis et les r^lauiatiouB r^it^r^es des antoritds diploiuatiques ot cousulaires
<le> £tats-Uuis, il ressort que le gouvornemeat de ^$a Majeat<S britaonique a u6g\\g6
<reniployer les due diUgeuces pour lo inaiutien dea devoirs de sa neutrality;
Considdrant que, de tous les I'aits relatifsau 8<Sjour de TOreto 4 Nassau, ^sasaisiedansce
[Mtrt, a son acquittemeut, a sa sortie de ce port, a TcurOleinent d'uu dquipage, ^ son appro-
vision uement, a son armemeut avec I'aido du bateau anglais Ic Prince Alfred ^ Green
Cay, il ressort qu'il y a eu n<^gligeuce de la part des autorites colouiales anglaises ;
Cousiddrant que, inalgrd les infractions dvidentes a la neutrality de la Graude-Bre-
tagne, conimises par TOreto, ce mSme navire, alors connu cornnie croiseur confdddr^
M)us le noni de Florida, fut encore i\ plusieurs reprises librement admis dans les ports
des colonies britanniques ;
Cousiderant que le fait de Fentrde du Florida dans le port oonf6(\6r6 de Mobile^ et
(le son sdjour dans ce port pendant quatre mois, ne saurait d^truire la respousabilitd
ant^rieurement encourae par la Grande-Bretagne —
Est d'avis que la Grande-Bretagne a nianqud aux devoirs presents dans les regies
•^tablies par Tarticle VI du trait<$ de Washington, ct que, par consequent, elle est
lespousable des faits imput^Ss aa crosieur couft^ddriS le Florida, ainsi que de ceux im-
putes ^ lies navires auxiliaires le Clarence, le Tacony, et 1' Archer.
IL — l'alabama.
Le sooBsign^ — apr^s examen oensciencieax de tons les docoments soumis aa U
100 ARBITRATION AT GENEVA.
the United States and of Great Britain, relating to the confederate
cruiser, the Alabama,
Considering,
That from all the facts relating to the building of the 290* in the port
of Liverpool, to her equipment and armament on the coast of Terceira
by the aid of the English vessels Agrippina and Bahama, after the
English vessel Hercules had conveyed a crew on board of her, it is
evident that the government of Great Britain neglected to use due dil-
igence for the fulfillment of its duties as a neutral, since, notwitb-
staiiding the repeated warnings and representations of the diplomatic
and consular authorities of the United States while the 290 was in
course of construction, no suitable measures were taken, and those
which were at length adopted for the arrest of the vessel were ordered
so late that they could not be executed ;
Considering, •
That, after the escape of the vessel, the measures taken for pursuing
and arresting her were so incomplete that they led to no result, and
cannot be considered as sufficient to free Great Britain from responsi-
bility ;
Considering,
That, in spite of the flagrant infractions of the neutrality of Great
Britain committed by the 290, this same vessel, then known as a con-
federate cruiser under the name of the Alabama, was again admitted
on several occasions into the ports of British colonies, whereas she
ought to have been proceeded against in the first British port in which
she might have been found ;
Is of opinion.
That Great Britain failed to fulfill the duties prescribed in the rules
laid down in Article VI of the treaty of Washington, and that she is
consequently responsible for the acts imputed to the confederate cruiser
Alabama, as well as for those imputed to her tender the Tuscaloosa.
d'arbitrage par les (ronvernemeDtB des fitats-Unis et de la Grande-Bretagne relatifs aa
croisenr couf^d^r^ 1' Alabama:
Goiisid^rant que, de tons les faits relatifs ti la construction dn *'290/' dans le port de
Liverpool, h, sou dquiperaent et armement sur les c6te6 de Terceira par les soins des
bateaux anglais TAgrippina et le Bahama, apres que le navire anglais le Hercule lui ent
amen6 un Equipage, il ressort clairement que le gouvernement de la Grande-Bretagne
a u^glig6 d'eraployer les du€€ ediligences pour le niaintien des devoirs do sa neutrality,
puistiue, maljn*6 les avis et r<5clamations r6it^r^es des autorit^ diplomatiqaes etcon-
Bulaires des Etats-Unis pendant le conrs de la construction du '*290,^ on ne prit aucane
mesuro convenable, et que celles iinalement prises pour faire arr^ter le navire fnrent si
tardivement ordonn^es qu'elles ne porent Stre ex6cut^es;
Consid^rant qu'apr^s la fuite dn navire les mesu-res prises pour le poursuivre et Ip
faire arrAter fnrent si incompletes qu'elles n-aznen^rent aucnn r^sultat, et ne penvent
6tre consid<^r^escomme suffisantca pourd<^gager la responsabilit^ dela Graude-Bret-agne;
Consid^rant que, malgr^ les infractions flagrantes h la neutrality de la Graude-
Bretagne commises par le *'290," ce mdme navire, alors connn comme croiseurcon-
fdd^r^ sous le nom de TAIiibama, fnt encore admis h plusieurs reprises dans les ports des
colonics britanniques, quand il aurait fallu proc^der centre lui dans le premier port
britarnique oh il aurait 6t^ rencontrd —
Est d'avis que la Grande-Bretagne a manqu^ aux devoirs presents dans les regies
dtablies par rarticle VI du traiti? de Washington, et que, par consequent, elle est res-
lM>nsable des faits imputes au croisenr conf<^d<^r6 PAlabama, ainsi que eeux imput^^ ^
son navire anxiliaire le Tuscaloosa.
* Number by which the Alabama was originally designated.
OPINIONS OF VISCOUNT d'iTAJUBA. 101
IV.— THE VESSELS (1) THE GEOKGIA, (2) THE SUMTER, (3) THE NASH-
VILLE, (4) THE RETRIBUTION, (5) THE TALLAHASSEE OR OLUSTEE,
(6) THE CHICKAMAUGA.
The undersigned, after a conscientious examination of all the docu-
ments submitted to the tribunal of arbitration by the Gov- q^,,;, .s,„„ter,
ernments of the United States and of Great Britain, relat- ?^:^''Lu^^.
ing to the confederate cruisers, ch.ckamau«u
The Georgia,
The Sumter,
The Nashville,
The Retribution,
The Tallahassee or Olustee,
The Ohickamauga,
Is of opinion,
That Great Britain did not fail to fulfill the duties prescribed \u the
rales laid down in Article VI 'of the treaty of Washington, and tliat
she is not responsible for the acts imputed to these vessels.
v.— THE VESSELS SALLIE, JEFFERSON DAVIS, MUSIC, BOSTON, V. H. JOY.
With regard to the vessels,
The Sallie, ^^^^.^ ^^^ ^^ ^
The Jeft'erson Davis, MuJic^' Boston, "v:
The Music,
The Boston,
The V. H. Joy,
The undersigned is of opinion.
That they sliould be excluded from discussion by the tribunal for
want of evidence.
VI. — THE SHENANDOAH.
The undersigned, after a conscientious examination of all the docu-
III.— LKS NAVIRES (1) LE GEORGIA, (2) LE 8UMPTER, (3) LE NASHVILLE, (4) LE RETRI-
BUTION, (5) LE TALLAHASSEE OU L'OLUSTEE, (6) LE CHICKAMAUGA.
Le soussigniS — app^ eKameu conuciencieux de tous les documents Hoiunis aii tribuDal
d'arbitrage par les goitveruements des Ctats-Unis et do la Grando-Bretagno, relatifs
aox croiseura coofi^drds
Le Oeorf^ia,
Le Sumter,
Le NashviUe,
Le RetributioD,
Le Tallahamee, on TOlustee,
Le Cbickamanga —
Est d'aviis que la Grand e-B re taguo n'a pas manqu^ unx devoirs prescrits dans les
regies Stabiles par Particle VI dn traits de Washington, et qu*elle n'est pas responsable
d«s fatts imputes k ces navires.
IV. — LES NAVIRES SALLIE, JEFFERSON DAVIS, Ml'SIC, BOSTON, V. H. JOY.
Le floussigud — quant aux navires
Le Sallie,
Le Jefferson Davis,
Le Music,
Le Boj»ton,
U V. H. Jov—
Est d'avis de les ^liminer des deliberations du tribunal, faute de preuves.
V. — LE SHENANDOAH.
Le aoussigne — apr^ esanien cousciencieux de tous les documents sournis au tribunal
102 ARBITRATION AT GENEVA.
meuts submitted to the tribunal of arbitration by the Governments of
the United States and of Great Britain, relating to the con-
Shenandoah. j* i a -itr^t -ii
federate cruiser the Shenandoah,
Considering,
That from all the facts relating to the departure from London of the
merchant-vessel Sea King,* to the departure from Liverpool of the
Laurel, to the meeting of these two vessels near the island of Madeira,
to tlie transfer of the armament and crew from one of these vessels to
the other, and to the transformation of the Sea King into a confederate
cruiser under the name of the Shenandoah, it is evident that the gov-
ernment of Her Britannic Majesty cannot be accused of having neg-
lected to use due diligence for the fulfillment of its duties as a neutral;
Considering,
That while, on the one hand, it is evident from all the facts relating
to the stay of the Shenandoah in the port of Melbourne that some few
irregularities occurred, such, in particular, as the augmentation of her
crew, on the other hand there is no proof that these irregularities can
be laid to the charge of the government ot Her Britannic Majesty or
imj)uted to the negligence of the English authorities, but tliat they
were the consequence of the violation by Commander Waddell of his
w ord of honor, aud of the exceptional difficulties of surveillance which
the conformation of the port i)resented ;
Considering, moreover,
That the governor of the colony having, after the departure of the
Shenandoah, become aware of the violation of neutrality of which this
vessel had been guilty, resolved thenceforth to refuse hospitality to
Lieutenant Waddell and the other officers of the Shenandoah, and
wrote in this sense to the naval and civil authorities of Australia,
requesting them to act in the same way, a fact which contributes toward
releasing the government of Her Britannic Majesty from any responsi
bility;
Is of opinion.
That Great Britain did not fail to fulfil the duties prescribed in the
d'arbitrage par les gouverueinentM des ^tats-Uuis et de la Grande-Bretagae, relatifts aa
croiseur couf^ddr^ H^ Shenandoah :
Consid(^rant que, de tons les fails relatifs an d<^part de Londres da navire marchand
le S«Mi King, au d<^part de Liverpool du Laurel, i\ la rencontre de ces deux navires pros
de Pile de Maderc, au transbordenient de Parmeiuent et de I'^quipage de Tnu de ces
uavires snr I'autre, ct a la transformation dn Sea King en croisenr confM^r^ sons le
uoui de Shenandoah, il ressort clairement que Von no saurait accuser le gouvernement
de «a Majestd britanniqne d'avoir Xi6'^\\g6 iVemployev les daea diligences pourle maintien
des devoirs de sa nentralitt^ ;
Cousiddrant que si, d'un c6t<^, de tons les faits rohitifs au s6Jonr du Shenandoah daus
le port de Melbourne, il ressort qu'il y a eu quelques irrdgularit^s commises, telles aur-
tont que I'augrnentation de IN^quipaige; d'un autre c6t6, il n'est pas prouv<S qne ces
irr(^gularit(^s puissent (^tre niises :\ hi charge du gouvernement do sa Majesty britaiinique
et imput«5es h la n<5gligence des autorit^s anghaises, mais qa'eUes ont 6t4> la consequence
dc la violation du hi parr^le d'honneur donn^e par le commandant Waddell, et des diffi-
culties exceptionuellfis de surveillance que pr<?sentait la conformation du port ;
Consid^rant, en outre, que le gonverneur de la colonic, ayant appris ap^^a le depart
du Siienandoah la violation de neutralite dont ce navire s'dtait rendn coupable, d^cida
de refuser dorduavant Thospitalit.^^ au lieutenant Waddell et aux autres ofliciers du
Shenandoah, et <5crivit dans ce sens aux autoriti^s uavnles ot civiles de I'Anstralie ea
les priant d'agir de niome, ce qui contribue A. di^gager la responsabilitd du gouverne-
ment de sa Msijestd britanniqne —
Est d'avis que la Graude-Hretagne n'a pas manqu<S aux devoirs prencrits daos les
* First name of the Shenandoah.
OPINIONS OF MR. STiEMPFLI. 103
rules laid down in Article VI of the treaty of Washington, and that she
is consequently not responsible for the acts imputed to the confederate
cruiser Shenandoah.
OPINIONS OF MR. ST^MPFLI.
L— OPINIONS ON THE QUESTIONS OF LAW AS TO WHICH THE TRIBUNAL
OF ARBITRATION, AT ITS SITTING OF JULY 25, 1872, REQUEST KD
ELUCIDATIONS FROM THE COUNSEL OF THE HIGH PARTIES PRESENT
AT THE BAR.
M. St^mpfli states that he sees no great advantage in wandering
into long descriptions and theoretical interpretations on the questions
of due diligence, the effect of commiHsioning^ and the supply of coal. He
sets forth orally and succinctly hia views on these heads, reserving to
himself the right of giving more precise reasons for their application in
each particular case, and confines Iiitnself for the present to laying
down the following principles only, which will serve him for his general
guidance.
General Principles of Law.
(Programme inserted ia Protocol X, Article A, No. III.)
In its decisions on points of law, the tribunal should be guided by
the following principles:
1. In the first place, by the three rules laid down in Article VI of the
treaty, which provides that— R„i.,c,th.tr«.tr
take proteilrDce,
In decidiDg the matters submitted to the arbitrators they shall be governed by the
followinj; three rules, which are agreed uptm by the high contracting parties, as rules
to be t<aken as applicable to the case, and by such principles of internatiouul law, not
regies ^tablies par Tarticle VI dn traits de Washington, et que, par consequent, elle n'est
pas responsable des faits imputes au croisenr conf^d^r^ lo Shenandoah.
Opinioms »ur les quesiiotiB de droit sur lesquelles le tribunal tParhitragej dans sa s^nce du
25 imVct 1872, a demandS des ^claircisaementa am oon»eiU des hautes parties pr^entes A
la oarre.
M. Staempfli d<^clare qn*il ue trouvo pas tres-opportun do se perdre, pour les trois
qnestions des dues diligences de Veffet de commissi4nis et des approrisionneinents de vharhoUy
daus de longucs discussions et interpretations th^oriques. II ddveloppe oralemunt et
sommairement ses vues y relatives, en so r^servant de uiotiver de plus pr^.s ItMir appli-
cation duus chaque cas special, et se borne pour le moment h poser les seuls principes
suivantH, qui Ini servirout de direction gdnerale.
PRINCIPES Gfexi^RAUX I>K DROIT.
(Programme insure dans le protocole X, Art. litt. A, No. III.)
Dans ses consid^rants juridiques, le tribunal doit se guider par les principes
suivants :
1'. En premier lieu, par les trois r^gles poshes daus Particle VI du traite, lequel
porte que —
^* Dans la decision des mati^res k cux soumises, les arbitres seront guides paries
trois r^les snivautes, que les hautes parties contractanto9 sout eon venues de regarder
commc des regies k prendre cumme applicables k la cause, et par tels principes du droit
104 ARBITRATION AT GENEVA.
inconsistent therewith, as the arbitrators shall determine to have been applicsible to
the case :
RULES.
A nontral government is bouud —
First. To use diligence to prevent the fitting ont, arming, or equipping, within its
jarisdiction, of any vessel which it has reasonable ground to believe is iut.euded to
cruise or to carry on war against a power with which it is at peace; and also t-o use
like diligence to prevent the departure froui its jurisdiction of anj' vesstd intended to
cruise or carry on war as above, such vessel having been specially adapted, iu whole
or in part, within such jurisdiction, to warlike use.
Secondly. Not to permit or suffer either belligerent to make nseof ItA ports or waters
as the base of naval operations against the other, or for the purpose of the reuewal or
augmentation of military supplies or arms, or the recruitment of men.
Thirdly. To exercise due diligence in its own ports and waters, and as to all persons
within its jurisdiction, to prevent any violation of the foregoing obligations and
duties.
According: to the treaty, these three rules take precedence of the
principles which might be drawn from historic international law and
from science.
2. Historical international law, or the practice of the law of nations,
as well as science and scientific authorities, may be considered as sub-
sidiary law, in so far as the principles to be applied are generally rec-
ognized, and are not liable to controversy, nor at variance with the three
rules quoted above. If one or other of these conditions fail, it is for the
tribunal to supply what is wanting by interpreting and applying the
three rules to the'best of its power and in (ill conscientiousness.
3. The laws of a state touching neutrality do not constitute an
element of the law of nations in the sense that they can-
aninpni aw-, ^^^^^ ^^ ^^^ timo, bc altcrcd, modified, or added to without
the co-operation or consent of other states, the law of nations itself be-
ing absoluely independent of these municipal laws ; yet, so long as there
des gens qni^ sans ^tre en ddsaccord avec ces regies, auront 6t6 reconnus par Ics arliitres
couime ayant 6t6 applicablcs dans I'esp^ce :
" RAGLES.
" Un gouvernenient neutre est t^nu —
** 1 De fairc les dues diligences pour pr^venir la mise en 6tat, I'armemeut en guerre
ou I'dquipement, (Jilting out, arming, or equipping,) dans sa juridiction, de tout vaissean
qu'il est raisounablenient fond<5 h croire destind k croiser ou ttfaire la guerre contre une
puissance avec laquelle ce gouvernenient est en paix ; et de faire aussi mSme diligence
pour emp^cher le depart hors de sajuridiction de tout navire destind ii croiser on ^
faire la guerre comme il est dit ci-dessus, ce navire ayant 6t6 spdcialfment adapuS, en
tout ou en partie, dans les limites de sa dite juridiction, a des usages bellig<Srants.
^^2 De ne permettre ni souffrir que Pun des belligdrants fasee usage de ses ports on
de ses eaux com me d'une base d'opdrations navales contre I'autre, ni pour ronouTeler
ou augmenter ses munitions militaircs ou son armement, ou s'y procurer des recmes.
''3 D'cxercer les dues diligences dans ses propres ports et eaux, et h r<Sgard detoutes
pcrsonnes dans les limites de sajuridiction, afiti d'empecher toute violation des obliga-
tions et devoirs prdcMent-s."
D^apr^s le traits, ces trois rdgles pr6valent sur les principes que Ton pourrait
ddduire du droit des gens historique et de la science.
2° Le droit des gens historique, ou bien la pratique du droit des gens, ainsi que la
science et les autoriKSs scientifiques, peuveut dtre considdr^ comme droit subsidiaire,
en taut que les principes k appliquer sont gdudralemeut reconnus, et ne sent point sigets
k controverse, ni en d<^.saccord avec les trois regies ci-dessus. Si I'nne ou I'autre de
ces conditions vieut k manquer, c'est au tribunal d'y supplier en interpr6tant etappli-
quant les trois regies de son mieux et en toute conscience.
3° Les lois sur la neutrality propres k un etat ne constituent pas un <^Idment du droit
des gens dans le sens qu'elles ne pouvent 6tre, en tout temps, changdes, inodifi^es on
«ompldt6?s sans la cooperation ou le consenteraent d'antres iStats, le droit des gens loi-
mdmo 6taut absolumeut ind<^pendant de ces lois muuicipales; oependant, tant que dans
OPINIONS OF MR. STiEMPFLI. 105
exist such laws iu a state, and they have not been abrogated, belliger-
ent states have the right to require their loyal observance, as other-
wise frauds or errors might be committed, to the detriment of one or
other of the belligerents ; as, for instance, when there is known to exist
(although no attention may be paid to it) a decree forbidding a bellig-
erent vessel of war to remain in a port for more than twenty- four hours,
or to take on board more coal than is necessary for her to reach the
nearest port of her country, or to obtain fresh supplies in the same port
within three months.
This principle, at the same time, implies that the absence of all muni-
cipal laws, or the want of suflScient laws on the subject, does not, in any
way, detract from the law of nations, either as regards international
obligations or rights.
Moreover, the following principles are admitted, which are cited here
to avoid a repetition of them iu the judgment to be given respecting
each of the vessels.
4. The "due diligence" to be exercised implicitly comprises vigilance
and initiative on the part of the neutral itself, with the object
01 discovering and preventing any violation of its own neu-
trality. A belligerent state is neither bound, nor has it the right, to
exercise surveillance or to perform police duties in a neutral state in
lieu of the local authorities.
5. The fact that a vessel, built in contravention of the laws of neu-
txalitv, escapes and gets out tx) sea, does not free that ves-
~^i ^ *" A.\ 'I'l*^ 1 !_ • i-ui- •!*.• Effect ol commiMion.
sel from the responsibility she has incurred by her violation
of neutrality ; she may, therefore, be proceeded against if she returns
within the jurisdiction of the injured state. The fact of her having been
transferred* or commissioned in the meanwhile, does not annul the
violation committed, unless the transfer or commissioning, as the case
may be, wa« a bonajide transaction.
M. Staemplli, following the programme inserted in Protocol X, takes
this opportunity of causing his propositions relative to Article A, Nos.
I and II of the said programme, to be also printed :
nn 4tsit il mibsisie des lois pareilles et qu'eUes n'ont pas 6t6 abrog^es, des ^tats bellig^-
rant8 oDt le droit d'ea r^clamer robservation loyale, piiisque sans cela il poiirrait se
coniiiiettre des fraiules on des erreurs an detriment de I'un ou de Taiitre des beUig^-
iTiDts. couiine, par example, qnand subsiste publiquement, bien qit'on ue I'observe pas,
I'ordonnaDce qui defend & nn navire belligt^raut de sojourner pins de viugt-quatre
heares dans un port, on d'embarqner plus de charbon qu'il ue Ini en faut pour regagner
le port de son pays le plus rapproch^, ou de s'approvisionner de nouveau an nidme port
avant que trois mois ee soient Moulds.
Ce principe irapliqne en mdnie terns que le manque de toutes lois innuicipales, ou le
manque de lois suffisantes sur la mati^re, ue d<Sroge en rien au droit des gens, soit aux
obligations et aux droits intern ation aux.
Kn outre, sont admis encore les principos suivants, que I'on cite ici afin d'en 6viter la
repetition dans le Jngement h porter sur chacun des vaisseanx:
4® Les "dues diligences" h exercer comprennent implicitement la jwopre vigilance
et la propre initiative dans le but de ddcouvrir et d'empScher tonte violation de la
propre neutrality; uu dtat bellig6rant n'a ni le devoir ni le droit d'exercer la surveil-
lance, ni de faire la police dans un 6tat neutre h la place des autorit6s du pays.
'j^ Le fait qu'un vaissean, constmit contrairement aux lois de la neutrality, s'^chappe
et gagne la mer, ne d^cbarge pas ce vaisseau de la respon8abilit<S qu'il a encourue pour
avoir v\ol6 la neutrality; 11 pent done Hre ponrsnivi sMl rentre dans la juridiction de
r^tat l^s^. Que ce navire ait 6t6 c6t\6 ou commissioun^ dans Pintervalle, ce fait ne
dc^tniit pas la violation commise, h moins que la cession ou le commissionnement, selou
!♦• cw, n*ait en lieu bond fide.
M. Staempfliy donnant suite au programme insdrd au protocole X, fait h cette occa-
sion iinprimcr aussi ses propositions relatives h Particle litt. A, N'^" I et II, du dit
prograuime:
106 ARBITRATION AT GENEVA.
(A.) General indications.
I. — Question to be decided.
The question to be decided by the tribanal is laid down in the follow-
QaMtionioiK.de i^g wopds Itt Articlc VII of the treaty :
cided.
The said tribunal shall first determine as to each vessel separately whether Great
Britain has, by any act or omission, failed to fulfill any of the duties set forth in the
foregoing three rules, or recognized by the principles of international law not incon-
sistent with such rules, and shall certify such fact as to each of the said vessels.
Moreover, the tribunal is authorized, if it think proper, to proceed
eventually to award a sum in gross in payment of all claims.
II. — Definition of facts.
The eases and documents put in by the two powers contain a quantity
of facts which should not be taken into consideration iu the
e Bitiono .ei5. jm]gm^jj|j ^Q i^Q pronounced by the tribunal. Notably :
1. The recognition of the insurgent States as a belligerent power by
the British government.
2. Expressions of sympathy or antipathy during the war, individual
speeches in or out of Parliament or other official assemblies, the attitude
of the press, &c.
3. The permission granted for the trade in arms, and for the departure
from port of ships intended to run the blockade, in so far as there is
nothing in the toleration of either of these acts which is at variance
with the prohibition to arm or equip vessels of war and cruisers.
4. The historical precedents of the violation or unequal ^ecution of
neutrality laws and of judicial decrees^ in so far as they relate to prin-
ciples of the law of nations which are now open to controversy.
( A. ) — Indications o^.n£rales.
I. — Question d decider.
La question h, decider par le tribunal est pr6cis6e de la mani^re suivante dans
Tarticle VII du traitd :
^'Le dit tribunal commencera par ddterminer, pour chaque navire s^pardment, si la
Orande-Hretagne a manqud, par une action ou une omission, k remplir des devoirs
^nonciSs dans les trois ])r<^c<Sdentes regies, ou rcconnues par les principes du droit des
gens qui ue sont pas en disaccord avec ces regies, et il certifiera ce fait a regard de
chacun des navires susdits."
En outre, le tribunal est charg^ 6veutuellement de proc^der, sUl le jnge conyenable,
h Fadjudication d'une somme en bloc xiour toutea les i^Sclamations.
II. — Delimitation dee faite.
Les m^moires et pieces produits par les deux parties contiennent une fonle de faits
qui n'entrent pas en consideration dans le jugeinent d. rendre par le tribunal. Tela
Bont notamment:
1. La reconnaissance par le gouvernement britanniqne des ^tats insurgds comme
puissance bellig<$rante;
2. Les expressions de sympathie on d'antipathie durant la guerre, les discours indi-
viduels an sein ou en deiiors des pariements ou autres corps officlels, Tattitude de la
presse, &c.;
3. La permission du commerce des armes at de la sortie des ports de navires destin^-s
h traverser le blocus; en taut qn'il n'y a rien dans la permission de Van ou de Tautre
de ces actes qui soit en disaccord aveo la defense d'armer ou d'^uiper des vaisseaux
de guerre et des croseurs ;
4. Les precedents bistoriqnes de violation on d^in^gal maintien des lois de la neu-
tralite et les arrets Judiciaires, en tant qu'il n'en deooule point des principes du dr»it
de gens, non sujets £ controverse.
OPINIONS OP MK. STiEMPFLI. 107
The facts to be taken into consideration by the tribunal are only the
acts and omissions of Great Britain with regard to each of the vessels
which form the subject of a complaint on the part of the United States.
Proposal of M. Staempfli under Article A, " Preliminary daemons " of
the programme inserted in Protocol X.
(B.) — Decision with begakd to each of the cruisers.
Preliminary decisions.
It is admissible that the United States should extend their claims to
other vessels besides the four mentioned in the British case,
xYLf the Florida, Alabama, Georgia, and Shenandoah. More- a« Sb!J*.!uudk»ISJ
over, the British counter case does not insist on the objection ""***
made on this head.
On the other hand, and from the very nature of things, no account
can be taken of the claims for indemnity for losses caused by vessels
not mentioned in the pleadings of the United States, and with regard
to which, consequently, no act or omission in violation of neutrality is
advanced or proved against Great Britain. This has reference to "the
cruisers named only in the lists of claims for losses, viz, the Boston,
Jeff. Davis, Sallie, V. H. Joy, and Music.
According to the rules thus laid down, the vessels remaining for dis-
cussion are the following :
1. The Sumter. 6, The Georgia.
2. The Nashville. 7. The Tallahassee.
3. The Florida and her tenders. 8. The Chickamauga.
4. The Alabama and her tender. 9. The Shenandoah.
5. The Ketribution.
In discussing each of these vessels, the order followed by the
Americ^an case, coinciding with the above list, will be adhered to.
Les faits qne le tribunal doit prendre en consideration ne sont que les aotions et les
omissions de la Grande-Bretagne 5. regard do chacnn des vaisseaux qui forment Pobjet
d'nue plainte de la part des fitats-Unis.
PropatitioH de M. SUtempfli d Varticle litt. Ay ** decisions pr€limina%re»" du programme
ina^rS au protocole X.
B. — ^D£CI8ION RELATIVE A CHACUN DES CKOISEUR8.
DecisioH8 preliminaires.
11 est admissible qne les £tats-Unis ^teudent lenrs reclamations h d'antres vaisseaux
qne les qaatre mentionnds dans le iu6muire britannique, h savoir, le Florida, TAlabama,
le Georf^ia et le Shenandoah. Le contre-meoioire britanniqne ne maintient d'ailleurs
plos Tobjection faite ^ cet 6gard.
Par contre et d^s le principe, Ton ne prendra point en consideration les demandes
d'indemnite pour destructions caus^es par des vaisseaux qui ne sont point meutionnes
dans les memoires des £tats-Unis, et ^ regard desquels, par consequence, I'on n'avance
ni De prouve ancuu acto ni aucune omission contraires ^ la neutralite, k la charge de
la Grande-Bretagne. Ceci a trait aux croiseurs qui ne sont indiques que daQS les
li6t€« de reclamations pour pertes — c'est-^k-dire, le Boston, le Jeff. Davis, le Sallie, le
V. H. Joy, et le Music.
D^apres ces directions posees, les navires restant en discussion sont les snivants :
1. Le Sumter. 6. Le Georgia.
2. Le Nashville. 7. Le Tallahassee.
3. Le Florida, avec ses tenders. 8. Le Chickamauga.
4. L' Alabama, avec son tender. 9. Le Shenandoah.
5. Le Retribution.
£n traitant de chacun des vaisseaux. Ton adopte Tordre suivi par le memoire ameri-
cain coincidant avec celui qui vient d'etre trace.
108 ARBITRATION- AT GENEVA.
Proposal of M. Staempfli as to the form of introduction to the judgment
The tribaiial of arbitration on the Alabama qaestion, constitated by
virtue of the treaty of Washington of May 8, 1871, having taken
cognizance of that treaty and of the cases, counter cases, and arga-
ments, as well as of all the appendices and documents in evidence pre-
sented by the two governments concerned, has fonnd and determined
what is recorded in the present judgment.
n. — THE FLORIDA.
(A.) — Facts and considerations.
The facts relative to this vessel are so complicated and so various,
that, for the sake of clearness and brevity, they cannot be
""'"^ stated apart from the considerations.
■
I. — Construction and equipment of the ship at Liverpool, and her departure
from that port.
1. This vessel was first known under the name of the Oreto ; she was
a screw gun-boat, of 700 tons burden, with two funnels and three masts;
she was ordered from Fawcett, Preston and Co., of Liverpool, by Bul-
lock, military agent of the insurgent States, soon after his arrival in
England, in the course of the summer of 1861.
2. Representation of the American minister, Adams, to Lord Bussell,
dated February 18, 1862, founded upon a communication made to him
by Dudley, the American consul at Liverpool, and describing the Oreto
as a " war-steamer," intended to commit hostilities against the United
States, naming also the persons who hatl taken part in the ordering of
the vessel, declaring that Fraser, Trenholm & Co., of Liverpool, (finan-
cial agents of the insurgent States,) had advanced the funds, and that.
if necessary, he would produce further evidence.
Proposition de M. Staempfli aur laformule cPintroduction de Vacte dujugemeni,
Le tribunal d'arbitrage dans la question de 1' Alabama, institu6 en vertn da traits
de Washington dn 8 niai 1871, apr^s avoir pris connaissance de ce trait-^ et d«$
m^moires, rdpliqnes et plaidoyers, ainsi que de tons len appendices etdes pieces ilbl'appai,
pr^sent6s par les deux g^ouvernements int^ress^s, a tronv^ et arrdt^ ce qui est consign^
dans le present acte du Jugement.
Le Florida.
(A.) — Faits et CON8ID£raNT8.
Les faits relatifs k ce vaissean aont tellement compliqn^s et si vari^ que, par
raison de clart^ et de bri^vet^, ils ne peuveut se d^rire b, part des consid^rants.
I. — Construction et 4qaipement du navire d Liverpool et ea sortie du port.
1. Ce yaisseau fut d'abord connu sous le nom de I'Oreto ; c'^tait une oannoni^re ^
h6\icej jangeant 700 tonneaux, munie de deux chemiu^es et de trois mftts ; 11 fat com-
mand6 chez Fawcett, Preston et C^^ h Liverpool, par Bullock, agent militaire des
^tats insnrg^s, pen de temps apr^ son arriv^e en Angleterre, dans le conrant de I'^t^
1861.
2. Reclamation du ministre am^ricain, Adams, k Lord Russell, en date dn 18 fcvrier
186*2. s'appuyant sur une communication k lui faite par Dudley, consul am^ricain ^
Liverpool, et d6signant TOreto comme " steamer de guerre," destin6 h commettre des
hostilit^s contre les £tats-Unis, uommant aussi les persounes qui avaient pris part a U
commande du navire, declarant qne Fraser, Trouholm et C**, }\ Liverpool, (agence
fiuanci^re des <Stats iusurg^s,) avaient fait les avances de fonds, et qne, s'il ^tait
n^cessaire, 11 fournirait encore des preuvea.
OPINIONS OF MR. ST^MPFLI. 109
3. The commissioners of customs at Liverpool, in their report of the
22d of February, 1862, founded on the reports of their agents, state
that "she is a splendid steamer, suitable for a dispatch-boat; she is
pierced for 4 guns. • • • • It appears that she is intended for the
use of Thomas Brothers, of Palermo. ♦ ♦ • Our collector states that
he has every reason to believe that the vessel is for the Italian govern-
ment.^ They add that they have given special instructions to watch the
vessel.
L On the 26th February, 1862, Lord Eussell forwards to Mr. Adams
a copy of the report of the commissioners of customs ; he does not ask
him for further evidence, although it had been offered to him. He con-
tents himself with directing the English embassador at Turin to make
iuqairies as to the destination of the vessel.
5. On the 3d of March, 1862, the vessel was registered in the name of
** Henry Thomas, of Liverpool ;" the next day she cleared for Palermo
and Jamaica; on the 11th of March, Bullock arrived with 4 officers, and
immediately went on board the vessel.
On the 22d of March, the Oreto left Liverpool in ballast^ with a crew
of tifty-two men, all English, with the exception of three or four, among
whom there was a single American.
At the same time the steamer Bahama left the same port with guns,
arms, and munitions, bronght by rail from Hartlepool (on the east coast
of England) to Liverpool, where they were put on board.
6. In reply to the inquiries made by the English ambassador, the
Italian minister for foreign afifairs declared that he had no knowl-
edge of the Oreto, but that he would make further inquiries, (March 1 ;)
he, however, supplied no further intelligence, nor did the English am-
bassador request any further information. According to Dudley's re-
port, the Italian consul at Liverpool had no knowledge of the vessel
being intended for Italy ; the English authorities, however, made no iu-
qairies of him, or of the Italian minister in London.
3. Le« commissaires den donanes h Liverpool, da us lear rapport dii 22 f6vrier
1862^ se fondant anr lea rapports de leurs agents, constatent que " c'est an mngnifique
steamer, qni conviendrait pour an service d'aviso ; il est perc6 pour quatre canons. . .
n paralt qn'il est destind k Fusage do Thomas freres, de Palernie Notre
coUectenr declare qu'il a toute raison de croire lo navire destln<S an gouveruenient
italien." lis ajouteut qu*U% ont donn4 des inntructiona sp6ciales pour faire aurveiller le
TaiH9eau.
4. Le 26 f<^rrior 1882, Lord Russell transuiet ii M. Adams copie du rapport des
commissaires de la douane; il ne lui demande point d'autres preaves, bien qu'on lui
en eikt offert. II se contente de charger Tambassadear d'Angleterre k Turin de
s'informer de la destination du navire.
5. Le 3 mars 1862, le navire fut en registry au nom de '^ Henri Thojnas, do Liver-
pool;*' le leudemain, il s'acqnitta au bureau de la douane pour Palermo et la
Jamaiqne; le II mars Bullock arriva avec quatre officiers, et se rendit immddiatemeut
a bord du vaimean.
Le22 mars, TOreto partit de Liverpool sur kdty avec nn Equipage de cinquanto-deux
bommes, tons Anglais, t\ Texception de trois ou quatre, parnii lesquels un seul
Am^ricain.
Dans le mdme temps, le vapeur Bahama quit ta it le nieme port avec des canons,
des urmes et des munitions, amends en ebemin de fer de Hartlepool (c6to orientale de
VAngleterre) ii Liverpool, oii'ils furent pris ii bord.
6. Snr les informations demand^es par I'ambassadenr d'Angleterre, le ministre
italien de(» affaires ^trang^res d^clara qu'il n'avait ancnne conuaissance de TOreto,
mais qu'il s'informerait encore, (I'' roars;) il ne fournlt toutefois pas d'autre noavelle,
et rambassadenr d'Angleterre ne demanda pas non pins d'autres renseiguements.
Dapr^ le rapport de Dudley, le consul d'ltalie & Liverpool n'avait aucune conuaissance
que ce navire ftit destine h Vltalie ; dn reste. les autont^s anglaises ne prirent point do
reoseignements chez lai ni ohez le ministre altalie k Londres.
110 ARBITRATION AT GENEVA.
7. The reports of the English officials showed that the Oreto was a
vessel of war.
A state of war had been officially recognized as existing between the
United States and the insurgent States, and the neutrality of Great
Britain had been officially proclaimed.
In spite of this, and in spite of the complaints of Mr. Adams, the En-
glish authorities took no initiative; they did not insist on its being
proved what was the true destination of the vessel, nor who >vas her
real owner, who had ordered her, and who was to pay for her. They
did not insist on the true position of Fraser, Trenholm & Co. being shown
by legal proof, did not demand positive information as to the crew of
the vessel, nor as to the arrival of naval offic^ers from the Confederate
States.
8. The special instrnctions given for watching the vessel appear not
to have been carried out or to have been without result.
The colonial authorities were not notified after the departure of the
vessel, and generally no steps were taken, notwithstanding the repre-
sentations of Mr. Adams, which were rei)eated and accompanied by de-
tails furnished by Dudley, under date of the 26th March, 1862.
II. — What took place at Nassau up to the time of tlw acquittal of the Oreto,
9. On the 28th April, 1862, the Oreto arrived at Nassau — ^the Bahama
a few days later.
Bepresentation made on the 9th May by the American consul. Whit-
ing, to the governor; the attorney-general replies, " that positive fticte
are required."
The authorities make no inquiries themselves.
On the 4th of May a fresh representation, accompanied by depositions
of witnesses ; the same answer.
10. McKillop, captain of Her Majesty's ship Bulldog, reports that
"the Oreto is apparently fitting and preparing for a vessel of war."
7. Les rapports dcs officiers anglais constataient que POreto ^tait nn vainsean de
guerro.
L'otat de bollig^rance entre les fitats-Uuis et les 6tata insurg68 6tait officiellement
reeoiiuu, et la neutralitd de la Grande-Bretagne avaH 6i€ officiolteinent proclaiii^e.
Malgre cela, et malgre lea r^dtlinations de M. Adams, les aniorit-^s anglaises ne
prirciit point d^nitiative; ellea n'insistferent point pour qne Ton constat&t la veritable
destination dii navire, quel en 6tait le v<Sritable propri^taire, qui Pavait commande iH
qui devait lo payer; ellea n'insisti^rent point snr la legitimation do la position de
Fraser, Trenholm, et C'«, ne deman<li^rent point d'(Hre positivemont reuseignces sur
Tt^cinipage du navire, ni aur rarriv^.e d'ofticiers de marine des dtats-conf^d^r^.
b. Lea instrnctions sp6ciales donnde^ pour fairo surveiller le navire paraisseut ue pas
avoir et6 auivies, on bien 6tre restdes sans rdsultat.
Lea autoritds coloniale^ ne furent point avis^es apr^s le depart dn navire: ^n
gdndral. il ne fut pris aucnne mesure, nonobstant lea representations reiter^es de
M. Adama, accompagndes de details fournis par Dudley, sons la date du 26 mars 1862.
II. — Ce qui sepassa d Nassau jusqu'd Vacquittement de V Oreto,
■
9. L« 28 asrril 1862, TOreto arriva k Nassau ; Ic Bahama, qnelques jours plus tard.
Reclamation faite, le 9 mai, par le consul americaiu, Whiting, au gouverucar;
I'attorney -general r^poud ** quHl faut des fails posiiifs,"
Les autorit^s ne font d'elles-mdmes aucune enqu^te.
Le 4 mai, nouvelle reclamation, accompagnee de depositions de temoins; m^mc
reponse.
10. McKillop, capitaine du navire de la marine royale le Bulldog, rapporte que
*^ rOreto se prepare et se dispose, selou les apparences, en bfttiment de guerre."
OPINIONS OF MR. ST-S:MPFLI. Ill
In consequence of this report, the vessel is watched by a ship of war.
On the 8th tlune McKillop aguiu reports, " tJiat he has visited and ex-
amined the vessel^ that she is fitted for war purposes^ that she has fittings at
variance with the character of a merchant vessel.^
On the 9th of June the lading of the vessel begins ; among other
things, arms and innuitious are placed on board her; on the 10th, how-
ever, the cargo is discharged, and the vessel clears out in ballast for
Havana.
11. Report of Hickley, commander of the Greyhound, signed by all
the officers and men of his vessel, the 13th June, 1862.
**The Oreto is in every respect fitted out as a man-of-war, on the
principle of dispatch gun- vessels in the English navy."
Nevertheless the attorney-general states that he does not think that
the seizure of the vessel would be justifiable.
12. On the 15th June the crew leave the Oreto, because her destina-
tion is not certain.
On the 17th June, in the morning, (>ommander Hickley seizes the
vessel, but releases her at once, the attorney-general being of opinion
that there is not sufficient evidence.
The same day, however, the seizure is renewed, with the sanction of
the governor.
13. Thereupon a judicial inquiry is commenced, from which it appears
that the vessel is consigned by Fraser, Trenholm & Co., (financial
agents of the insurgent States in England,) to Adderley & Co., (com-
mercial agency of the insurgents,) at Nassau.
On the 2d of August, 1802, the Oreto was acquitted; still, however,
**as there existed grave suspicions" without costs or indemnity being
granted. **What took place," says the judgment, "before the arrival
of the Oreto at Nassau, can only be admitted by way of elucidation or
explanation," a theory which the British case itself admits to be erro-
neous.
14. The course of action of the authorities at Nassau, the proceedings
A la suite de ce rapport, on fait surveiUer ce uavire pur iin vaisseau do guerre.
Le ti JuiD, McKiUop rapporte de nouveau ^^qu^il a fait la risite ei Vexamen du vaisseau,
quil est dispose pour des usages de guerrcj quHl y a des installations qui ne r6pondent pas
au caractkre d^un vaisseau marchand"
Le 9 jniu, on commence ik. charger lo uavire; on y embarque entr'autres des armes et
df-« munitions ; cependaut, le 10, ou ddcbarge la cargaisou et le uavire s'acquitte sur
It^t {>our la Havane.
11. Rapport de Hickley^ commaudant du Greyhouud, sigud par tons les officiers et
em ploy ds de sou vaisseau le 13 juiu 186*2:
*' L'Oreto est, sous tons les rapports, armd en bfttimeut de guerre, d'apriis le systems
<les canouuieres-avisos de la marine anglaise/'
Pourtant rattorucy-geueral declare qn'il necroit pas que I'ou puiase justifier lasaisie
do vaism^au.
12. Le 15 juiu, IVquipage quitte TOreto, parce que la destination du uavire n'est pas
ccrtaine.
Le 17 juiUy au matin, le commandant Hickley saislt le vaisseau, mais le relilche aus-
$it6t, rattoruey-general dtant d'avis qu'il n'y avait pas de preuves sutfisantes.
Toutefois, le m^me jour, on renouvelle la saisie avec la sanction du gouverneur.
13. LardesBus, commeucement d'eiiqudte judiciare, de laquelle 11 r<*sultc que le vais*
Bean est consign^ par Fraser, Trenholm et C^« (agents financiers des insurg6s en An-
gleterre) h Adderly et C*** (agence commcrciale des insurgds) si Nassau.
Le 2 aoilt 1862, TOreto fut acqnittd ; mais toutefois, '"comme il existait de s<Srieux
fioap^ous,^ sans adjudication de ddpeus ni dHndemuit^ *^Ce qui se passa," dit le
jugement, " avant Tarriv^e de TOreto 4 Nassau ue pent ^tre admis qii'a titre d'dclair-
clsiiements ou d'explications'' — th^orie que le m<Smoire bricauuique qualifie lui-m6me
d'erron^.
14. La maoi^Ee d'agir des autorit^ de Nassau, la procedure et le jngement dans
112 ARBITRATION AT GENEVA.
and the jadgment in this matter, exhibit in partiealar the following
defaults and acts of negligence.
No initiative was taken to procure evidence ;
No account was taken of the reports of the officers of the fleet;
No account was taken of the x>revious *istory of the Oreto;
The evidence heard was imperfect; Maffit, commander of the Oreto,
was not heard at all ; as witnesses on behalf of the Crown, persons be-
longing to the vessel under trial only were heard ; as witness for the
defense, a partner in the interested house of Adderley & Co., and, so far
as appears in the minutes, none of these depositions were sworn to.
15. The fact of the omission to transmit instructions in time to the
colonial authorities also operated disadvantageously, in regard to what
took place at Nassau.
The authorities at Nassau were not, from the first, informed of the
previous history of the Oreto, nor of the views of the government.
The judicial acquittal of the Oreto at Nassau took place without wait-
ing for the approval of her seizure, and for the instructions which had
been sent from London, and which were still on their way.
16. The objection that the judicial decision at Nassau relieves Great
Britain of all responsibility cannot be maintained. As regards the in-
ternal (or municipal) law, the judgment is valid; but as far as inter
national law is concerned, it does not alter the position of Great Britain.
III. — What took place subsequently at the Bahamas immediately after the
acquittal, — Armainent and equipment,
17. Enlistment of forty men of the crew at Nassau, (according to
the British case itself, the Oreto cleared on the 7th of August, with
fifty-two men, for St. John's, New Brunswick.)
She is provided with guns, munitions, &c., with the aid of the Enghsh
cette affaire t^moigneDt particnli^reroent des actes de negligence et des defaats sui-
vants:
Nulle initiative eu vue de se procurer des preuves ;
Nul conipte tenu des rapports des officiers de la flotte ;
Niil conipte tenu des precedents de VOreto ;
Incomplete audition de teiiioins: Maffit, commandant de TOreto, ne fnt point en-
teudu ; conune t^moins dans IMnt^rdt de la couroune, on n'enteutlit qne des persoDnes
appartenant au navire inculpe ; couinie t^moin & decharge, un associ^ do la maison ia-
teress^e de Adderley et C* ; et autant qu'il appert dans les actes, toutes ces depositions
furent non assermentees.
15. Lo fait que, de Londres, Ton omit de communiquer k temps des instructions
aux autorites coloniales, eut un effet egalement desavantagenx sur ce qui se passa ^
Nassau :
Les autorites de Nassau n'etaient pas, dbs Tabord, instruites des precedents de
rOreto ni de la maniere de voir dn minist^ro ;
L'acquittcinent judiciaire de TOreto h, Nassau se fit sans que Ton ett attendu la con-
firmation de la saisie et les instructions qne Ton envoyait de Londres et qui se troii-
vaient encore en chcmin.
16. Uotijection que I'arrftt judiciaire de Nassau degage la Grand e-Bretagne de tonte
responsabilite u^est pas soutonable: vis-^-vis des lois interienres, (mnnicipales,) le
jugenient est valable ; mais i\ regard dn droit des gens, 11 no change pas la x>o8ition de
la Grande-Bretagne.
III.— Ce qui ae passa uUSrieurement aux ties Bahamas^ immSdiatement apri^s VacquittemeHt—
Armement, 4quipement,
17. Enr61ement de quarantehommesd'equipage & Nassau, (d'apr^le me moire britan-
niqne lui-mdme, TOreto s'acquitta en douane le 7 aodt avec cinquaute-deux hommes,
pour St. Johns, New Brunswick).
II 86 pourvoit de canons, de munitions, &«., avec I'aide du vaiaseau anglais le Prince
OPINIONS OF MR. ST^MPFLI. 113
vessel Prince Alfred, which shipped at the wharf of Adderley & Co.
the cargo brought by the Bahama, while the Oreto, meantime, took in
coal and provisions at the island of Providence. From this latter place
she towed the Prince Alfred to Green Cay, where the transshipment of
the armament took place.
This having been done, she left for the coast of Cuba, under the name
of the Florida, and thence running the blockade to Mobile, which she
reached on the 4th of September, 1862.
18. The enlistment of the crew and the armament of the Florida at
the Bahamas are to be attributed to the neglect of the British authori-
ties, and the following objections cannot be considered as valid :
That the Oreto had just been acquitted; for the enlistment and arma-
ment constituted new acts, and it was the more incumbent upon the
the authorities to exercise the strictest vigilance, inasmuch as, leaving
all other circumstances out of consideration, the judicial sentence itself
declared the vessel to be under grave suspicion.
That Green Cay was distant and little frequented. This objection
has the less importance, inasmuch as all that was done at Green Cay
had its point of departure at ^N^assau, and could easily have been per-
ceived from the latter place.
There were no proceedings taken against the Prince Alfred as an ac-
cessory, in spite of the denunciation and representation of the American
cousol, to whom it was thought sufficient to reply that he must '^ produce
evidence."
IV. — Cruise of the Florida^ and her repeated shipments of coal in British
ports,
19. Having left Mobile, the Florida returned, on the 26th of January,
1803, to Nassau Bay. She there shipped coal for three months, taking
ltS() tons, according to the American statement ; according to the British
statement, she had only room for 130 tons ; but the depositions of wit-
Alfred, qni embarqaa an qnai de Adderley et C>« la cagaison amende par le Bahama,
pendant qae, daus rintervalle, TOreto s'approvisiounait de charbon et de vivres k Tile
de la Provideuce ; de ce dernier endroit il remorqua le Priace Alfred jasqu'ii Green Cay,
oil eat lieu le trausbordeiuent de rarmement.
Cela fait, il part pour les cOtes de Cuba, sous le nom de '^e Florida," et de li^, en tra-
vereant le bU)CUs, pour Mobile, oti il arriva le 4 septembre 1862.
18. L'onr6lenieDt de T^quipage et Tarmement du Florida aux Bahamas sont impn-
tables 4 la negligence des autoritds britanniques, et Pon ne peut conaiddrer com me
fond^^'es les objection suivautes :
Que rOreto venait d^Stre acquittd ; (car Penrdlement et Tarmenent constituaient de
Doaveaux faits, et les autorit^s avaient d'autant plus le devoir d'exercer une rigonrense
attention, qne, abstraction faite de toutes les autres circoustances, I'arrdt judiciaire
d^clarait lui-meme le navire s<^rieusement suspect ;)
Qae Green Cay ^tait <Sloign6 et pen fr^^quent^; (cette objection est d^autant moins
iiuportante qne tout ce qui so fit a Green Cay partit de Nassau, et pouvait fort bien
s'aperceyoir depuis ce dernier endroit.)
11 n'y ent point d'enqudte soulev^e contre le Prince Alfred comme complice, malgr€
la denonciation et la reclamation du consul am^ricaiu, auquel on se contenta de r6pon-
dre qa'il devait '* disposer des prenves."
IX.^CroUih-e du Florida et ms approrUionnemenia rilUr4s de charbon dans dee ports
britanniques.
19. Parti de Mobile, le Florida
il y fait dn charbon poar trois
il n'aoTait eu place que poor
8 B
114 ARBITRATION AT GENEVA.
nesses state that there was coal placed on the deck and everywhere on
board.
According to the report of English experts, she required 46 tons to
return to Wilmington, the nearest port of the insurgents.
At the end of thirty-six hours' stay, (the British case says twenty-six
hours) she sails oft' again on a cruise, and destroys a certain number of
American vessels.
20. On the 24th February, 1863, she enters the British port of Barba-
does, and there ships 100 tons of coal.
21. On the 16th July she reaches St. George, the port of Bermuda,
stays there nine days, takes in a complete supply dof coal, and sets off
again for Brest; during this voyage more vessels are destroyed.
22. On the 13th April, 1864, she again touches at Bermuda, but only,
it was said, for the purpose of landing a sick officer ; she only remained
there a few hours, but reappeared on the 18th July, 1864, and requested
to be admitted to effect some repairs and to ship some coal ; she obtained
permission for five days, but staid nine; fraudulent shipment of coal
to the amount of 150 tons; she cruised for several days in sight of tbe
island ; the officers on the naval station saw all this, but took no steps.
She destroyed more American ships.
23. On the 7th of October, 1864, she closed her career in the port of
Bahia.
24. The repeated supplies of coal which we have just mentioned are,
in the first place, an infraction of municipal law and of the British reg-
ulations; especially —
Of the circular of the 31st of January, 1862, which, at the time these
events took place, had been for a long time published in all the colonies,
and of the explanatory instructions bearing date the 16th July, 1863,
addressed to the governors of the West Indian colonies, and known at
least during a portion of the same time.
They are, in particular, contrary to the second rule of the treaty
tions de t^moins constatent qiVil y avait da cbarbon d^pos^ sur le pont et pariont a
l)ord.
Au dire des experts anglais, il lui en anrait falln 46 tonneanx poar retourner ^ Wil-
mington, port insurgd le plus proche.
Au bout de treute-six heures de 8<^jour, (Fexposd anglais dit vingt-six beures,) il
repart pour croiser, et d6truit un certain nombre de vaisseanx am<5ricain8.
20. Le 24 f6vrier 1863, il entre au port britannique de Barbade et y embarqae 100
tonneaux de cbarbon.
21- Le 16 iuillet, il arrive k St.-Georges, port des Bermndes, y sdjonrne nouf jonrs, y
fait un coniplet appro vision nement de charbon, et repart pour Brest; pendant ce voyage,
nonvelles destructions de vaisseaux.
22. Le 13 avril 1864, il touche de nouvoaux h Bermnde, mais uniqnement, disait-il,
dans le but de mettre k terre nn officier malade ; 11 n'y resta que quelques heures, mais
y reparut le 18 juin 1864, demanda d'etre admis pour faire dos reparations et embar-
quer du cbarbon ; il obtint permission pour cinq jours, mais en resta neuf ; enibarque-
ment frauduleux de cbarbon, jusqu^^ 150 tonneaux ; il croisa plusieurs jours en vne
de I'lle ; les officiers anx stations maritimes voyaient tout, mais ue prirent aucune
mesure.
II ddtruisit encore des navires am^^ricains.
23. Le 7 octobre 1864, il termina sa carri^re dans le port de Babia.
24. Les approvisionuenients r^it^rds de cbarbon, que nous venons de mentionner,
sont, en premier lieu, une infraction auxlois municipales et auxr^glements de la Graude-
Bretague, notammeut :
A. la circulaire do 31 Janvier 1862, qui, h F6poqne oH ces faits se pass^rent, ^tait
• depuis longtemps proclam^e dans toutes les colonies, et aux instructions explicative^
adress^es, sons la date du 16 juillet 1863, aux gouverneurs des colonies des Indes Occi-
dentales et connues au moins pendant une partie de la m6me p^riode;
lis sont surtout en d^accord avec la 2« rt^gle du traits, d'apr^s laqueUe nn ^tat
OPINIONS OF MR. ST^MPFLI. 115
according to which a neutral state may not allow it« ports to serve as a
base of operations for carrying on war or cruising.
25. The objections made by Great Britain, that the cruises of the
Florida and the depredations committed by that vessel took place only
after she had run the blockade, and that there ha<l been negligence on
the part of the American officers charged with the maintenance of the
blockade, are not such as to release Great Britain from the responsibility
of her own negligence; this last was the primary and sole cause not only
of her running the blockade, but also of all the hostilities committed by
the Florida against the United States ; and the assumed negligence of
the officers who maintained the blockade is, moreover, not proved any
more than the further assertion that the armament and equipment of
the Florida took place in the port of Mobile.
26. The further objection, made on the same side, that equal facilities
of supply were accorded to vessels of the United States, among others
to the San Jacinto, is equally immaterial and, besides, according to the
American case, it is not founded on fact, at least as far as the San Jaointo
is concerned.
V. — Armament and equipment of tenders.
27. In the course of her cruise, the Florida supplied officers and crews
to the following tenders :
On the 6th May, 1863, the Clarence was captured off the Brazilian
coast, and was supplied with guns and with a crew. She destroyed
several vessels. ,
On the 10th June, the Clarence captured the Tacony ; the Clarence
was destroyed, and the Tacony transformed into a tender ', the latter
also destroyed several vessels.
On the 25th June, the Tacony captured the Archer, which was trans-
formed into a tender, and the Tacony was burnt. The Archer destroyed
the Caleb Gushing, a United States coast-guard vessel.
neutre ne doit pas soafirir qne ses ports seryent do hase d'opi^ratioDs pour faire la guerre
oa croiser en nier.
25. Les objections faites par la Graude-Bretagne, que les courses du Florida et les
destructions cooimises par ce navire eurent lieu seulement apr^s qn'il eut franchi le
blocus, et qu*il y eut negligence de la part des officiers amdricaius charges de garder
le bloeoB, ne sont pas de nature ^ pouvoir d^charger la Grande-Bretagne de la
respousabilit^ pour ces propres negligences, celles-ci dtant la premiere et seule cause,
non-seulement de la traversde du blocus, mais encore de tontes les hostilit^s commises
par le Florida con tre les fitats-Unis; et la prdtendue negligence des officiers charges
de garder le blocus n'est d'ailleurs pas constatde, pas plus que Tassertion ultdrieure que
Varmeinent et r^quipement du Florida se soit fait dans le port de Mobile.
26. L'objection ultdrieure, faite de la mdrae part, que Ton accorda les mdmes facilit^s
d'approTisionnement aux vaisseaux des iStats-Unis, entr'autres au San Jacinto, est
ei^aleinent sans importance ; et en outre, d'apr^ Texposd amdricain, elle n'est pas fondde
sar des faits, du moins pour ce qui conceme le San Jacinto.
y. — Armemeni et 4quipement de navires auxiliaireSf (tenders.)
27. Dnrant le cours de sa croisi^re, le Florida fournit des officiers et des Equipages
aux vaisseaux auxiliaires suivants :
*'Le 6 mat 1863, le Clarence fut captnrd sur les c6tes du Br<5sil et fut muni de canons
et d'un Equipage ; il detruisit plusieurs vaisseaux ;
'* Le 10 juin, le Clarence captura le Tacony; le Clarence fut d^truit et le Tacony
transform^ en tender ; ce dernier ddtruisit dgalement plusieurs vaisseaux ;
"Le 25 juin, le Tacony captura FArcher, qui fut transform^ en tender, et le
Tacony fut briiie, L' Archer d^truisit le Caleb Gushing, vaisseau garde-cOtes des
fitats-Unis."
116 ARBITRATION AT GENEVA.
With regard to the question of responsibility, it is needless to say
that tenders are subject to the same rules as the principal vessel.
(B.) — SmiMABY.
(a.) In regard to the construction, fitting out, and equipment of the
Oreto at Liverpool, and to her departure from that port, in regard also
to the departure of the Bahama, laden with arms for the Oreto, which
took place shortly afterward, the British authorities failed to use "due
diligence"in the fulfillment of the duties of neutrality, particularly alsoiu
that they neither communicated with nor sent instructions to the colo-
nial authorities with respect to these vessels.
{b.) It is the same with regard to the events which took place at Nas-
sau ; there was negligence especially in the absence of all initiative to
avscertain the truth, in the defective nature of the judicial proceediugs,
and, the Oreto having been acquitted, in the absence of all control, and
of all watch over her proceedings, which alone rendered it possible for this
vessel to be armed and equipped in British waters ; and, furthermore^
there was again negligence in that, after communications and instruc-
tion had been received, no proceedings were taken, when the opportu-
nity ottered, against the guilty vessel, on the charge of acts in viola-
tion of the neutrality of Great Britain.
(c.) It is the same also with regard to the fact that, on several occa-
sions, the vessel known thenceforth by the name of the Florida was
permitted to supply herself with coal in such quantities that, each time,
she was enabled to undertake a fresh cruise.
III.— THE ALABAMA,
(A.) — ^Facts.
1. — What tooh place up to the time tcJien this vessel escaped from Liverpool
1. She was ordered at Liverpool, the plans were accepted, and the
Relativemeut h, la question do respoDBabiliti^ U ya sans dire que les vaisseaux atiiili-
aires 6oat BUjets aux memes regies que lo vaisseau principal.
(B.)— R^SUMfi.
a) Lore de la construction, de la preparation et de IVquiperaent de TOrcto h Liver"
pool, et lors de sa sortie du port, de nieine que lors de la sortie qui eut lieu pea de
temps aprt^s dn Bahama, charg<^ des armos de I'Oreto, les autorit<^s britanniques out
neglige d'employer les ^* dues diligences " dans le maiutien des devoirs de la nentralite,
notamment aussi en ce qu'elles n'out fait aucune communication ni envoyd d'instrac*
tions aux uutpritds colonialcs relativement i\ ces vaisseaux.
h) II en est de mt^nie pour ce r^ui concerne les faits arrives h Nassau ; il y eut sartont
negligence: dans ^absence de toute initiative pour dtablir la v^rite, dans la roauiere
detectueuse de proc<5der en justice, et, Pacquittement do TOreto ayant eu lien, dans
Tabsence do tout contrAle et de toute surveillance de la conduite de I'Oreto, (ce qui
seul foumit h ce vaisseau la possibility de s'armer et de s^^quiper dans les eaux britan-
niques,) etalora mSme il y eut encore negligence en ce que, apr^ avoir re^n des com-
munications et des instructions, on ue proc^da pas, le cas echeant, contre le vaisoeaa
coupable, sous rimpntation d'actes de violation de la neutrality de la Oraude-Bretajroc*
c) II en est de m6me encore pour ce qui concerne le fait d'avoir tol^r^ & plusieun
reprises que le vaisseau, connu des lore sous le nom de ^'le Florida," s'approvisiounM
de cbarbon en quantity telle que, cbaque fois, il poavait entreprendre de noavellt'S
courees.
l'alabama.
(A.)— Faits.
J,-^C^ qui se passa juequ^au moment oik ce vaisseau 8*^happa de Liverpool
*
1. n fut command^ 2i Liverpool, les plans en furent acceptes et le march6 fat sign^
OPINIONS OF MR. ST.EMPFLI. 117
contract signed by Bullock, the 9th October, 1861 ; her engines were of
300 horse-power; she was pierced for six 32pounder broad
side guns; she was further provided with two pivot-guns,
the one a rifled 100-ponnder, the other an Sinch smooth-bore gun.
On the 15th May she was launched under the nani^ of the " 290."
2. On the 23d June, 1802, Mr. Adamses first representation to Lord Rus-
xellj Stating that she was a vessel of war, and that her departure must
be stopped; it was dedared that this vessel was not intended for
oiK?rations against the United States.
3. June 25, this remonstrance is transmitted by Lord Eussell to the
secretary to the treasury ;
To the law-oflieers of the Crown ;
The secretary to the treasury for>vards it to the commissioners of
customs ;
These latter to the collector.
4. The law-officers of the Crown report to Lord Eussell, June 30, as
follows: *'If the facts alleged by Mr. Adams are in accordance with
truth, it is a manifest violation of the foreign-enlistment act, • ♦ ♦ but
evidence is necessary. They further advise Lord Eussell to inform Mr.
Adams that the government will investigate tlie ca^eP
'). The collector reports to the commissioners of customs, and the
latter, relying on his statement, report in their turn to the treasury,
00 the 1st July, that —
She is intended for warlike purposes ;
Several powder-canisters are on board, but no guns :
She is bnilt for a foreign government, a fact which is not denied by Messrs. Laird ;
hut they do not appear disposed to reply to any questions respecting the future destina-
tion of the vessel after she leaves Liverpool.
The agents have no other reliable source of. information.
The consul should communicate all the documents in his possession.
The officials at Liverpool tcill keep a strict watch on the vessel,
6. July 4, 1862, Lord Russell transmits these reports to Mr. Adams,
and informs him, among other things —
par Ballock 1e 9 octobre 1861; machines de la force de 300 chevaux/perc<^ de six
canons, de 32, snr les c6tes; arm6 en outre de deux canons k pivot, dont Tun ray^ de 100
hvres et I'autre lisse de 8 ponces.
Le 15 mai, il fut mis ^ I'eau sous le nom de '^290.''
2. Le 23 juin 1862, premiere reclamation d' Adams a Lord Itussellf disant que c'etait un
vaiHsean de guerre, qu'il fallait en arrt^ter Texpddition; on constata quo ce biitimeut
liVtait pas destind k op^rer centre les £tat.s-Unis.
3. Le 25 juin, cette reclamation est transmise par Lord Russell au secretaire de la
tn^sorerie ;
Aux jurisconsultes de la conronne;
Le Hecr^taire de la tresorerie la transmet aux commissaires de donanes ;
Cfiix-ci au coUecteur.
4. Lea Jurisconsuites de la oouronne font rapport k Lord Russell le 30 juin. disant :
"Si les faitB pr<5sente8 par M. Adams s'accordeut avec la v6rite, c'est uue violation
nianifeste da foreign-enlistment aci^ . . . mats il faat des preures. lis conseillent
d'aillonrs k Lord Rnssell de communiquer k M. Adams que le gonvernement va s^enquerir
dtjaffaire:*
3. Le collectenr fait rapport aux commissaires des donanes, et ceux-ci, s'appuyaut
sar sa declaration, rapportent ^ leur tour, le l^^*^ juillet, h la trdsorerie:
"£»t destine k des usages de guerre ;
"Plusieurs bottes h poudre embarquees, mais pas de canons.
^*Pour UD gonvernement etranger, ce qui n-eM pas nie par MM. Laird; mais lis ne
paraisaent pas disposes h. repondre*^ aucune question relative k la destination future
da vaissean, lorsqn'il aura quitte le port de Liverpool.
"Les agents n'ont point d'antre source de renseignements certains.
" Le consul devrait communiquer tons les documents qn*il possede.
" Les offieiers de Liverpool exerceront une stride surveillance sur le raisseauJ*
6. Le 4 juillet 1862, Lord Russell transmet ces rapports k M. Adams, et entr'autres
les points snivants :
118 ARBITRATION AT GENEVA.
^^That the j^ovemment will inquire into the matter;" that Oonsul
Dndley '^ ought to cominanicate the documents to the collector; that
the officials at Liverpool ivill watch the vessel attenti^ly.^
7. Between Mr. Adams's representation and Lord BusselPs reply,
fifteen days elapsed before the result was arrived at that '' the evidence
is insvffieientJ^
8. Second effort of the American agents,
9. July 9y 1862, Consul Dudley to the collector; communication of
documents.
9 — 10. The collector is not satisfied with them ; ^^ he asks for legal
evidence,^
July 10, 1862, the inspector informs the collector that he finds tbe
vessel in the same condition as on the occasion of his first visit.
On the 11th the solicitor writes to the commissioners of customs that
the evidence rests on hearsay; that it is inadmissible; iJiat there is
nothing which amounts to proof sufficient to justify a seizure.
On the 15th the commissioners inform the collector that there is not
eufiicient evidence to warrant a seizure.
10. On the 21st the consul to the collector, with witnesses and sworn
depojsitions, demands the seizure of the vessel.
*'The collector to the commissioners ; requests instructions by tele-
graph, as the vessel appears to he ready for sea^ and may leave at any
. moment.
"The commissioners to the solicitor, for opinion."
On the 22d, the assistant solicitor and the solicitor to the commis-
sioners :
" We are of opinion that there is m>t suffident evidence,
" The commissioners to the collector :
<* Not sufficient evidence, but the consul may take proceedings at his otcn
risk and peril,^
The same to the treasury ; communicate documents. Shall the law-
ofiicers of the Crown be consulted f
Hamilton (commissioner to the treasury) to Layard, under-secretary
" Que le gouvemement va B'onqudrir de I'affaire ;" que le oonsul Dudley "devrait
communiquer au collecteur lea documeota ; que les jfonctionnairea de Liverpool tuneHle-
rant attentivement le raUseau."
7. Eutre la r<^clamatiou de M. Adams et la r^ponse de Lord Russell U se passa quinze
Jours pour arriver an rdsultat que " lee preuvea ne sont pas euffisautes"
8. Deuxikme essai des iigents amencains,
9. Le 9 juillet 1862^ le consul Dudley an collecteur: Communication des docnmenU.
9. — 10. Le collecteur ne les trouvc pas sufflsants ; ^*H demande deft preuvee legales"
Le 10 juillet l'!^2, Pinspectcur au coUecteur: a trouv^ le vaisseau dans le m6me 6tat
que lors de sa preniic^re visite.
Le 11, le solliciteur aux comroissaires des donanes: repose snr des ottt-dirs ; qn'elle
est inadmissible ; rien qui rnonte d des preuves suffisantes pourjustifier nne aaisie.
Le 15, commissnires an collecteur: pas suffisautes pour justitier la saisie.
10. Le 21, consul au coUecteur, avec t^moins et depositions asserment^es : demande
la s<aisie.
" Collecteur aux commissaires : demande des instructions par t^l^graphe, attendu g««
le navire pai-ait pret d prendre la mer et pent partir h tout moment.
" Lea commissaires au solicitor pour pr<5avis."
Le 22, 1'ussistant du solliciteur et le sollicitenr aux commissaires:
"Somnies d'avis quMl n'y a pas de preuves suffisantes.
''Les commissaires au collecteur:
''Pas de preuves suffisantes, mais le oonsul peut se charger des poursuitea d see risqvetti
p4rils,"
Les mdmes h la trdsorerie : Communication des pieces. S*il y anrait lien ik consolter
les jurisconsultes de la couronne f
Hamilton (commissaire ^ la tr^sorerie) & Layard, sous-secretaire daforei4fn office:
OPINIONS OF MB. STJEMPFLI. 119
of state for forei^ affairs : ^^As the case may be considered presmig^ I
write to you unofficially to save time ; it is said that the vessel is very
nearly ready for seaP
11. Adams to Lord 'BusseU : Communication from the customs, and
Dadley's evidence.
Jnly 23, documents received at the foreign office.
Foreign office to the law-officers of the Grown: ^^To report their
opinion to Lord Russell oa soon as possible.^
Dudley to the board of customs :
Communicates two fresh depositions, toith an opinion of Mr, B'. P. Collier j
that there is a flagrant violation of the foreign-enlistment act.
The board of customs to the assistant solicitor for opinion.
The assistant solicitor to the board : the documents do not materially
strengthen thecase^ but^ in consideration of the high position of Mr. Colliery
the lords commissioners of the treasury might have recourse to the law-
officers of the Crown for their opinion.
Layard communicates all these additional documents also, on the same
day, to the law-officers, requesting them to report their ox)inion to Lord
Rassell at the earliest possible moment.
12. On the morning of the 29th the law-officers write to Lord Bnssell :
Order the arrest of the vessel until the accused shall have proved her desti-
nation to be innocent The order for her seizure was immediately sent to.
Liverpool,
Dudley informs the board of customs on the 28th that the vessel is
to sail on the 29th.
13. The vessel sails durii^g the night of the 2Sth'29th of July^ 1862.
14. From the 9th to the 29th, twenty-one days elapsed, and the result
of this delay was, that the vessel escaped.
U. — Measures taken to pursue the Alabama,
15. Two days after the escape of the vessel had become known, the
commissioners of customs, on the 31st July, 1862, gave the first order to
" Comme le cos pent etre jagi pressant, je tods 6cri8 ofiBcieasement pour ^conomiaer da
tempcs ; on dit qite U native esty peu e'en faut^ prei d prendre la mer,"
11. Adaiiia k Lord Russell : Comnfunication des douanes et preuYOS de Dudley.
Le 2Sy reception des pieces Skii foreign office.
Foreign office anx jnriscousultes de la couronne: ^' Communiquez yotre opinion k
Lord Kuiisell aueaitOt que vous le pourrez"
Dadley aa conseil ous douanes :
Communication de deux nouvelles ddpositions aveo consultation de M, B» P. CollieTf
qu'il y a violation flagraute dn foreign-enlistment act.
Le conseil des douanes ^ Tassistant solicitor pour prdavis.
Lassistaut solicitor au conseil : n^apportent pas un renfort essentiely mais vu la haute po-
rition de M. CollieTf les lords de la tr6soreriepourraientrecourir aux lumU^res des Juris-
coDsultes de la couronne.
Layard communique aussi toutes ces pieces additionnelles ce jour mSme aux juris-
consnltes, avec recommandation de communiquer leuravis dans leplus hr^ dilai h, Lord
Rassell.
12. Le 29, matin f les jurisconsultes au Comte Russell : recommandez la saisie du vais-
•eau JHsqu'd ce que les accuses aientprouv^ sa destination innocente ; ordre de saisie partit int-
mediatement de Liverpool.
Dudley au conseil des douanes, du 28 : avertit que le vaisseau doit partir le 29.
13. Le vaisseau sort dans la nuit du 28 au 29 juillet 1862.
14. Du 9 aa 29, il sMcoula vingt-et-un jours, et le r6sultat de ce d^lai fat la fuite du
vaisseau.
U.—Mesures prises pour poursuitre V Alabama.
15. Denx jours apr^ que la fuite du vaisseau fnt connne, les commissaires des douanes
doan^rent le premier ordre de le poursuivre, le 31 juillet ld6i, d'abord aux ooUecteurs
120 ARBITRATION AT GENEVA.
pursue ber, to the collectors at Liverpool and Cork in tbe first place,
desiring thein to seize her if she should touch at either of those ports.
On the Ist August the same order was sent to the collectors at Beau-
maris and Holyliead.
On the 2d August this order was also sent to the governor of the Ba-
hamas, for the port of Nassau ; no communications or instructions were
sent to any other British ports or colonies ; no ships were dispatched iu
pursuit into neighboring British waters.
On the night of the 30th-31st, two days after her escape from Liver-
pool, the vessel was still in British waters, off Moelfra and Anglesey.
The pursuit of the 290 in these waters took place too late.
III. — The Hercules brings her a crew.
16. The tug Hercules, which brought back to Liverpool the Messre.
Laird and their ladies, who had accompanied the 290, took on board at
the latter port a certain number of sailors intended for the 290. The
collector being informed of this fact by a letter from Dudley, dated Jaly
30, 1862, caused the Hercules to be searched.
The oflBcer charged with the execution of this order reported, " that
there were on board a certain number of men who admitted that they
formed part of the crew, and were about to join the gun-boat."
In spite of this, the collector did not arrest the Hercules.
Although he had been ordered to seize the 290, he did not even canse
the Hercules to be followed.
He wrote about her to London by post instead of telegraphing.
He did not receive from London any instructions with regard to tbe
enlistment ; he was only desired to find out if there were powder and
guns on board.
The captain of the Hercules himself acknowledged, on the 1st of
August, that he had " taken off from twenty-five to thii'ty men who, as
he believed, were about to form part of the crew of the 290.''
de Liverpool et de Cork, lear iutimant de saisir le nayirOi s'il venait k aborder h I'nn de
ces ports.
Le l^^ aoi^t, le m^me ordre fiit donn^ aax collecteurs de Beanmaris et de Holyhead.
Le 2 aoClt, cet ordre fiit aussi eiivoy<5 aa gonveruenr des lies Bahamas, pour le port de
Nassau ; il n\y eut point de comuinnicatioDS faites, ni d'instructious envoydes ^ d'aatres
Sorts et colonies britanuiques ; il u'y eat point de vaisseaox envoy^s k la ponrsaite
ans les eaux britanuiques voisines.
Dans la nuit du 30 an 31, deux jours apr^s sa fnite de Liverpool, le vaisseau 6tait en-
core dans les eaux britanuiques de Moelfra et d' Anglesey. La poursoite du ''Iii90 ^^dans
ces eaux eut lieu trop tard.
III. — VHercule amhie un Equipage.
16. Le remorqueur FHercule, qui ramena h Liverpool MM. Laird, constmctears de
navires, et leurs dames, qui avaient accompagn^ le ^'290,'' embarqna dans ce deroier
]>ort nn certain nombre de matelots destines au " 290." Le collecteur, instruit de ce
fait par une lettre de Dudley du 30 juillot 1862, fit examiner le navire VHercule.
L'offlcier charge de Pex6cutiou de cet ordre rapporta '^ qu'il y avait h bord un certain
nombre de personnes qui admirent qu'elles faisaient partie de P^qnipage et qu'ellei
allaieut rejoindre la canonni^re.^'
Malgr<$ cela, le collecteur n'arr^ta point THercule.
Lui, qui avait Fordre de saisir le ^* 290,'' ne fit i)as m6me suivre THercule.
II en <^<!rivit k Londres par la poste, au lieu de t^l^graphier.
II ne re^ut non plus do Londres aucun ordre relatif h renr61ement ; on le chargea
seulement de sMnformer sMl y avait h bord de la poudre et des canons.
Le patron de FHercule reconnut lui-m6me, le V^ aoClt, ''avoir emmen6 vingt-cioq ^
trente hommes, qui, k ce qu'il croyait^ devaient faire partie de I'^quipage da " 290.'^
OPINIONS OF MR. ST^MPFLI. 121
The 200 left Moelfra Bay with a crew of about'eighty men, and arrived
OD the 10th of August off the coast of Terceira,
rV. — The Agrippina and Bahama bring arms and coal,
17. The Agrippina, Captain Quinn, arrived at Terceira, from London,
on the 18th of August, 18G2, having on board coal, guns, and ammuni-
tion for the 200.
The Bahama, the same vessel which was to have taken her armament
to the Florida, next arrived from Liverpool on the 20th of the same
month, with Semmes and other officers of the Sumter on board for the
290, and also guns and ammunition, which had been regularly cleared
at the custom-house at Liverpool.
The transshipment of coal, guns, and ammunition to the 200 took place
from the 20th to the 23d.
On Sunday, August 24, 1862, the 200 hoisted the insurgent flag, and
took the name of the Alabama.
Bollock and others returned on board of the Bahama.
V. — Cruise and eventual fate of the Alabama.
18. She left Terceira for the West Indies. At Martinique the Agrip-
pina supplied her afresh with coal. In the Gulf of Mexico she destroyed
8ome vessels of the United States merchant navy and the war-steamer
Uatteras.
On the 18th January, 1863, she arrived at Jamaica, landed her pris-
oners, made repairs, and shipped stores. Three British men-of-war
^ere in port, but no order appears ever to have arrived from London for
the arrest of the vessel.
She left Jamaica on the 25th January for the coast of Brazil ; at
Bahia she fell in with the Georgia. Thence she sailed for the Cape ot
Le "290" qaitta la baie de Moelfra avec un Equipage d'environ quatre-vingts homines,
et arriya le 10 aoQt but les c6te8 de Terceira.
rV. — V Agrippina et le Bahama amknent des armea et du charhon.
UAmppine, oapitaine Qninn, arriva, le 18 aodt 1862, de Londres ik Terceira, ay ant
a bora da charbon, des canons et des manitions pour le *' 290.''
Le Bahama, le m^me vaisseau qui devait avoir men6 Tarmement an Florida, Tint
fOHuite de Liverpool, le 20 du in&rae niois, ayant k bord Semmes et d'autrcs officiers
(ill Sumter poor le '^290," ainsi que des canons et des munitions, qui avaient 6t6
r<^?ulier^ment acquittds en douane h Liverpool.
Le transbordement du charbon, des canons et des manitions sur le " 290 " eat lieu da
2<> au 23.
Dimanche, le 24 aodt 1862, le " 290 " arbora le pavilion des insurgds et prit le nom de
TAlabaroa.
BaUock et d'aatres revinrent h bord du Bahama.
y. — Cr^uQre et sort final de VAlahama,
18. n partit de Terceira poar les Indes Occiden tales. A la Martinique, VA^rippine
lai foamit de noaveau du charbon. Dans le Grolfe da Mexique, il d^truisit des vais-
seanx de la marine marohande des £tats-Unis et le vapenr de guerre le Hatteras.
Le 18 Janvier 1863, il arriva h la Jamaique, y d^posa ses prisonniers, fit ses r^^para-
tioDs et embarqna des provisions. Trois vaisseaux de guerre britanniques 6taient
presents ; mais il ne paralt pas qu'il soit jamais venu de Londres Tordre d'arr6ter le
navire.
II qaitta la Jamalqne le 25 Janvier ponr se rendre sur les cdtes du Br6sil ; h Bahia
il recontra le Georgia. De 1^ il lit voile pour le Cap de Bonne Esperanoe, et le 23 juillet
122 ARBITRATION AT GENEVA.
Good Hope, and on thcf 23d of tf aly entered the harbor of Table Bay.
The circumstance which arose on the voyag^e in connection with the
Tuscaloosa will be mentioned further on, under No. VI.
She left Table Bay for the East Indies, and, on the 23d December,
1863, she anchored at Singapore, where she coaled. On the 20th March,
1864, she returned to Capetown, where she also coal^. She left this
port on the 25th March, and anchored at Cherbourg on the 11th Jane,
1864.
It was on leaving this port, on the 19th Jane, that she was sunk by
the United States man-of-war Kearsarge.
Part of the officers and crew were saved by the English yacht Deer-
hound, which happened to be in the neighborhood.
VL— TA6 tender Tuscaloosa.
19. While on her way from the coast of Brazil to the Cape of Good
Hope, the Alabama captured the Conrad, a United States merchant-
vessel, of Philadelphia, bound from Buenos Ayres to New York with a
cargo of wool.
This vessel was brought to Capetown under the name of the Tasca*
loosa, it being announced that she was commissioned as a cruiser.
This mere declaration was accepted, and, on the departure of the
principal vessel for the Indian Ocean, Semmes dispatched the TasciV
loosa to cruise off the coast of Brazil.
On her return to Capetown, the vessel was seized by the governor, and
detained till the end of the war.
(B.)— CONStDEBATIONS.
With regard to the Alabama, Great Britain did not fulfill the obliga-
tions incumbent on her by virtue of the three rules of the treaty of
Washington.
il entra au port de Table Bay. Le cas qui se pr^senta en voyage aveo le Tuscaloosa
Bora cl<?crit plus loin, sous lo N° VI.
De cet eudroit il partit poor les Indes Orientales, et le 23 ddcembre 1863, il jeta Tan-
cre & Singapore, oil il fit du charbon. Le 20 mars 1864, 11 reviut ^ la Ville dn Cap,
(Cape Town,) ofi il se repourvut 6galement de cbarboa. Qaitta ce port le 25 mars, et
jeta I'ancre {\ Cberbourg le 11 Juin 1864.
Cefut a sa sortie de ceport, le 19 juin, qu^il fui oouU d fond par le vaisaeau de guerrt di$
^tatfi' Unis le Kearnarge,
Uiie partie des olliciers et de Tdqnipage furent sauv^ par le yacht anglais le Deer-
hound, qui se trouvait dans ces parages.
VI. — Le tender Tuscaloosa,
19. En route depuis les cdtes du Br^sil an Cap de Bonne Esp^Srance, PAlabama captnra
le Conrad, navire de commerce des fltats-Unis, de Philadelphie, se rendaut de Bueaos
Ayres k New York avec une cargaison de laine.
On amena ce navire h la Ville du Cap (Cape Town,) sous le nom de Tuscaloosa, et en
annon^ant qu'il (^tait oommis8ionD6 comme oroiseur.
Cette simple declaration tut accept^e, et au d<$part du vaissean principal poor I'co^an
ludien, Semmes envoya le Tuscaloosa croiser sur les c6tes du Br^sil.
A sou retour & la Ville du Cap, le vaisseau fut salsi par le gouvernenr et retenn ja&-
qu'& la fin de la guerre.
(B.)— CONSID^RANTS.
Pour ce qui concerne VAlabama, la Grando-Bretagne n'a pas rempli les obligations
qui lui incombaient en vertu des trois regies du traits de Washington.
OPINIONS OF ME. STJEMPFLI. 123
I. — With regard to the building and escape of the vessel.
(a.) It is beyond doabt that the Alabama was fitted out in British
ports as a vessel of war of the insurgent States.
(k) The example of the Oreto made it the duty of the British authori-
ties to be on their guard against acts of this kind.
(c.) They nevertheless did not in any way take the initiative, on the
representations of Dudley and Adams, with a view of inquiring into the
trae state of affairs, although they had given an assurance that the
authorities should take the matter up.
(<f.) After sufficient evidence had been furnished, the examination of
it was so procrastinated, and the measures taken to arrest the vessel
were so defective, that she was enabled to escape just before the order
for her seizure was given.
IL — With regard to the measures taken for her pursuit
(a.) The orders to pursue and arrest the vessel were not given until
forty-eight hours afterward, and were only sent to a few ports close at
hand.
(h.) No instructions were sent to the other ports of Great Britain or
to those beyond the seas, except to that of Nassau.
(c.) Xo vessels, even, were sent in pursuit into the neighboring Eng-
lish waters.
UL — With regard to judicial proceedings on account of the enlistment of a
crew J and of the armament of the vessel.
(a.) There were no more proceedings instituted against those persons
who had enlisted the crew of the Alabama, or those who had conveyed
her armament on board, than against those who had ordered or those
who had built her.
I. — A Vigard de la oonttrucHon et de la/uite du vaiaseau.
a) n est hors de doate qne TAlabama a 6t4 pr6par6 comme vaiasean de gnerre des
^tat« insurg^^s dans des ports britaaniques.
h) Les prdcddents de TOreto faisaieut un devoir auz aatorit^s britanniques d'etre
Bar lenrs gardes vis-^-vi8 de faits de ce genre.
c) A la suite des ddnonciations de Dudley et d'Adams, elles ne prirent pourtant pas
la moindre initiative en vne de s'enqn^rir du veritable ^tat des cboses, malgr^ qu'elles
eaasent donn^ Tassurance que les autoriti<^s prendraient la chose en mains.
d) Apr^ que Ton eut fourni des prenves snfflsantes, Texamen de celles-ci fut telle-
luent retard^ et les mesnres prises pour faire arrdter le vaisseau fureut si ddfectneuscs,
que le navire put s'^happer imm^diatement avant que Ton etlt donu^ Pordre du le
fiaisir.
n. — A V4gard dea meeures prises p<mr le faire poursuirre,
«) Les ordres de ponrsnivre et d'arrdter le vaisseau apr^ sa fnite ne fnrent donn6s
que qnarant«-huit heures plus tard, et ne furent adress^s qu'^ quelques ports rapprocb^.
h) II ne fut donn^ aucune instruction aux autres ports de la Grande Bretagne ni &
cenx d'outre-mer, excepts & ceux de Nassau.
c) II n'y eut pas mdme de vaisseaux envoy^s ^ la poursuite dans les eaux anglaises
da voisinage.
m^— J V4gard de pounuitee judiciairea d cauae de Venr6Ument Wun 4qaipage el de Var^
mement,
a) n n'y ent pas plus d'enqudte institute contre ceux qui avaient enr61^ I'^qnipage
de TAlabama et ceux qui lui avaient amen^ son armementi que contre ceux qui Tavaient
command^ et ceux qui Tavaient construit.
124 ARBITRATION AT GENEVA.
(b.) The disciplinary penalties inflicted on some seamen of the Ala-
bama on their return to England cannot be looked upon as a serioas
prosecution.
IV. — With regard to the free admission to British ports subsequently
allowed to this vessel.
(a.) The fact that the vessel was armed within English jurisdiction,
and in (contravention of neutrality, was established by the order for her
seizure issued by the British authorities.
{b,) The same is true with regard to the illegal and fraudulent depart-
ure of the vessel from the port of Liverpool.
(c.) The cognizance and complicity of the insurgent government,
which had commissioned the vessel, as also of the agents of that gov-
ernment at Liverpool, and of the officers who commanded her, had like-
wise been established.
{d.) Not only, therefore, had the British authorities the right, but it
was also their duty, to seize this vessel, in whatever British port she
might be found.
(e.) The British government even admitted this right and this duty
so far as the port of Nassau is concerned.
V. — The following objections are not valid:
(a.) That the arming and equipping of the vessel did not take place
within British jurisdiction, but only in waters lying beyond that juris-
diction.
By the first rule, and according to the natural interpretation of tbe
obligations of the law of nations, even a partial equipment for warlike
purposes is not allowable. This is, moreover, admitted by the English
law-officers of the Crown in their report of July 29, 1862. It is further
established that even the armament and the original equipment of the
Alabama were prepared within British jurisdiction, and shipped from
h) Ou ne coDsid^re point comme enqu^te B<^rieu8e les peines disciplinatres pronon-
c€es contre quelques matelots do TAlabama, revenus en Angleterre.
IV. — A V6gard de Za lihre admission dans des ports hrilanniqnes subs4quemment accord^ a ce
navire.
a) L'armement da vaissean dans la juridiction de rAngleierre, et contrairement ^ la
neiitralitd ,dtait con8tat<$ par Tarr^t de saisie renda par les autorit^s britauuiques.
h) II en 6tait de mdme de la sortie ill^gale et frauduleuse du navire dn port de
Liverpool.
c) L'ou avait aussi constats la connaissance et la complicitd da goavernement dea
insnrgds, qui avait coniniissionnd le vaissean, et respectiyement des agents de ce goa-
vernement h Liverpool et des ofliciers qui commandaient le navire.
d) Les autorit^s britanniqnes avaient done, non-sealement le droit, mais encore 1«
devoir, de suisir ce vaissean, dans quelqne port britannique qu'on le rencontrilt.
e) Le goavernement britannique a mdme leconnu ce droit et ce devoir pour oe qoi
concerne le port de Nassau.
y. — Les objections suirantes ne sontpas fondSes,
a) Qne Tarmement et I'dquipement du vaissean n'ont pas en lieu dans la juridic-
tion britannique, mais seulement dans des eaux situ<^es en dehors de cette juridiction.
D'apr^s la regie 1, et selon une interpr<$tation naturelle des obligations du* droit des
gens, une preparation, m^me partielle, i)k des buts de guerre n'est pas admissible ; c^est
ce qne, dn reste, les jurisconsultes de la couronne en Angleterre out reconnu eux-
mSmes dans leur pr^avis du 29 juillet 1862; en outre, 11 est constats que mfvae
rarmenient et le premier 6quipement de ^Alabama furent pr^par^ dans la juridic-
tion britannique et partireut de port« britanniques ; une division des circonstances
OPINIONS OF MR. STiEMPFLI. 125
British ports. A division of the circumstances attending an offense
does not, in itself, do away with the offense, more especially when the
8iime cognizance and criuiinal purpose attach to all the persons con-
cerned.
(k) That the vessel having been commissioned for the insurgent
States, her seizure within British jurisdiction w^as not allowable. This
objection is refuted by the fourth general rule of law laid down at the
beginning of this draught.
(c.) That Great Britain cannot be held responsible for the negligence
of which subordinate officials may have been guilty in the pursuit of
the vessel, for indiscretions which may have been committed by some
unknown subordinate with regard to her impending seizure, &c. Taken
by itself, an act of imprudence or negligence on the part of subordinate
authorities or officials does not, it is true, necessarily entail responsi-
bility for the extreme consequences of such act; but when a series of
acts of neglect are in question, feach of the acts in that case becomes
of importance.
(d,) That the United States were themselves guilty of negligence —
In having furnished incomplete and tardy evidence through their
agents.
This objection is refuted by the fifth general rule of law laid down
above.
By the inaction of the vessel-of-war Tuscarora,in the waters of Liver-
pool.
Even if this fact were established, it would be no excuse for acts of
negligence on the part of the British authorities.
IV. — THE SHENANDOAH.
(A.)— Facts.
l.—What took place from the time of her departure to that of her armament
and equipment in the waters of Madeira.
«
1. This vessel was originally the Sea King, a merchant- vessel belong-
dn d61it n'invalident pas ce cl<?]it en lui-m^me, sartout lorsqu^on recontre, chez toutes
les personnes int<^ress<^6s, la mdine connaissance et la mdine intention criminelle.
h) Que le vaissean ayant dt<S commissionnd ponr lea <$tat« insureds, uuo saiBie de
ce vainseau dans la juridiction anglaise n'dtait plus admissible; cette objection est
rijfnt^e par la rt^gle g^ndrale de droit No. 4, pos^e an commencement de ce projet.
c) Que la Grande Bretagne ne pent 6tre responsable pour des negligences qui ont
Fn se presenter de la part d'emp]oy<^s subalternes dans la poursuite dn vaissean, pour
indiscn^tion qui a pn se commettre par un subalterne inconuu, concernant la saisie
imminente, &c.; pris isol^nient, un acte d'imprudence ou de negligence de la part
dantorit^s et d^employes subalternes n'entralne pas necessairement, il est vrai, la
responsabilite pour les consequences cxtrdmes de cet acte; mais lorsqu'il s'agit d'une
Si^rie de n^glitreDces, chacun des faits prend alors de I'importance.
d) Qae les fitats-Unis se sont eux-ui6mes rendus coupables de negligence —
£n fonrnissant defectueusemont et trop tard des preuves par le moyen de leurs
agents. Cette objection est refutee par la r^gle generale de droit, No. 5^ posee plus
baut —
Par la condnite pen active dn vaissean de guerre le Tnscarora dans les eaux de Li-
verpooL Qnand mdme il serait etabli, ce fait ne serait pas nne excuse pour les actes de
negUgence des aatoritea britanniqnes.
LE SHEKAKDOAH.
(A.)— Fapfs.
I. — Ce qui se pa99a depuis 8on dSpart Jusqu^d son armemeni et iqwpement dans les eaux de
Madire.
1. Ce narire dtait originalrement le Sea King, vaisseaa marchand appartenant h nne
126 ARBITRATION AT GENEVA.
iug to a firm in Bombay ; she was employed in the East India trade,
and was built at Glasgow, in 1863. She was a long, rakish
Shenandoah. ^^^^j ^^ ^ ,^^ ^^^^^ ^.^^ euglnes of 220 horse-power, (Rob-
ertson & Co., who sold her, say only 150 horse-power, and not 220,) mak-
ing ten knots an hour ; she had made three hundred and twenty miles in
twenty-four hours; and was built by celebrated ship-builders on the
Clyde.
2. She left in i^ovember, 1863, for New Zealand and for the China seas,
and returned to London with a cargo of tea. Before her voyage to
Kew Zealand, Dudley saw her at Glasgow, and pointed her out to his
superiors as a steamer likely to be intended for a privateer.
3. On the 20th September, 1864, she was sold in London to Richard
Wright, of Liverpool, a British subject, and father-in-law to Prioleau,
head partner of Fraser, Trenholm & Co. The sale was registered the
same day.
4. On the 7th October, 1864, Wright gave a power of attorney to a
man named Corbett, a British subject, (who was implicated in matters
connected with vessels running the blockade,) enabling him to sell the
vessel whenever he could within six mouths, at a minimum price of
£45,000 sterling.
5. On the 8th October, 1864, she cleared for Bombay ; left London
with a crew of forty-seven men, having first taken in coal and provis-
ions for twelve mouths. She had on board two 18-pounder guns on
carriages, (12-pounders, according to the British Counter Case, p. 103.)
The same night the southern agent at Liverpool was informed of her
departure, by telegraph.
6. On the 8th October, 1864, the very same night, the Laurel, screw-
steamer, nearly new, and of first-class make, left Liverpool with about
twenty citizens of the Southern States on board, and some cases marked
^' machinery," which contained guns and gun-carriages, such as are used
on board ships of war. The Laurel and the Sea King had arranged
to meet in the bay of Funchal, in the island of Madeira. .
maison de Bombay; il dtait employ^ dans le commerce des Indes Orientales et avait
6t6 constniit fi Glasgow, on 1863. C'<^tait un vaiuseau long, h mature inclin^e, d'one
capacity de 1,700 touueaux, avec machines aaxiliaires de ^^10 clievaux, (Robertson et
C'% vendciirB, disent seulement 150 chevaux, et uou 220,) faisaut dix noouds li I'heare;
il avait fait 3*^0 milles en vingt-quatre heures ; il avait ^t^ coustruit par de cclebre«»
constructcurs des bords de la Clyde.
S. II partit, en novembre 1863, poar la Nou velo-Z<^lande et pour les mers de la Chine
et rcviut h Londres avec uno cargaison de thd. Avant son voyage k la Nouvelle-Ze-
lande, Dadley le vlt i\ Glasgow et le signala k ses sup^rienrs comme an steamer pro-
bablement destind a fairo la course.
3. Le 20 septembre 1864, il fut vendu h Londres, k Ricbard Wright de Liverpool,
sujet anglais et beau-p^re do Prioleau, ce dernier le principal associ^ de Fraser, Tren-
holm et C®. La vente fut enregistrde le memo jour.
4. Le 7 octobre 1864, Wright donna procuration ii an nomm6 Corbett, snjet anglais,
(impliqu6 dans des faits relatifs k des vaisseaux qui for^aieut le blocus,) de veodrele
uavire quand il le poarrait, dans le ddlai de six mois au prix minimum de 45,000 lirres
sterling.
5. Le 8 octobre 1864, il s'acqaitta en douane poar Bombay, partit de Londres avec
quarante-sept hommes d'6qaipage, apr^s avoir auparavant embarqu^ du charbon et
des provisions pour douze mois. 11 avait h bord deux canons months, de 18 Uvres, (de V2
livres, d'apr^s le contre-m6uioire britanniqne, p. 103.) Le mdme soir, le depart en tut
annonc^ par t^l^graphe iSk I'argent da sad k Liverpool.
6. Le 8 octobre 1864, le meme soir encore, le Laurel, vapear h h61ice, presque neuf
et sup^rieurement construit, partit de Liverpool, emportant une vingtaine de citoyeu.s
des dtats du sud et des caisses, d^sign^es comme "machines," lesquel les con tenaient
des canons et des affiits, tela que ceux employes h bord des vaisseaux de guerre. Le
Laurel et le Sea King s'dtaient donu<S rendez-vous dans la bale de Fanohal, He de
Mad^re.
OPINIONS OP MR. STJEMPFLl/ 127
7. On the 19tli of October the Sea King arrived off Punchal ; the Laurel
had preceded her by two days. The two ships met and effected the
traDSshipment of the cannon, &c., (six large guns, two small, carriages,
maoitions, powder, muskets, &c. ;) for this, thirty-six hours sufiiced.
Corbett then came forward, announced the sale of the Sea King, and
tried to induce the crew to remain. Out of eighty sailors, however,
only twenty-three remained. The ofl&cers and men retained in the Sea
KiDg numbered in all forty-two, and hardly formed half her proper
complement, which forced her to use her engines.
She took the name of the Shenandoah, and continued on her way
under the insurgent flag.
IL — Steps taken by the English consul at Teneriffe^ and their result,
8. On the 12th of November, 1864, Lord Eussell received from the
English consul, at Teneriffe, a detailed report, dated October 30, of
what had taken place in the waters of Madeira.
The consul also sent Corbett, captain of the Sea King, as a prisoner
to England. Among other things the report of the English consul
says the Laurel arrived at Teneriffe on the 21st October for the purpose
of coaling; the master, Bamsay, came before the consul and expressed
a desire to land forty-three i>assengers who wished to return to England
by the first opportunity; they were from the British steamer Sea King,
of Louden, which had been wrecked near the Desertas islands.
On the 23d October the Laurel proceeded on her voyage. The master
of the Sea King, however, did not come forward to make the usual
declarations and to ask for assistance; the inquiries made by the consul
proved that the Sea King had not been wrecked at all, but that she had
been already sold in London, and was to be handed over on the high
seas.
The consul took the depositions on oath of four sailors who had been
landed. In these depositions it was stated that the Laurel had left
Liverpool bound for Nassau ; that she had taken on board twenty-six
7. Le 19 octobre, le Sea King arriva devant Funclial ; le Laurel Vy avait pr^cddd de
deax jours. Lies deax vaisseanx se r<5joigDent et effectaent le trausbordeiuent des
^aDons et des accessoires, (six grandes pieces, deax petites, aft'dts, munitions, poudre,
fusils, &c. ;) il suffit pour cela de treute-six heures. Corbett alors se pr^^senta, annou^a
la vent« du Sea King et cheixjha ^ engager r<5quipage ^ rester. De quatre-viugts
matelote, U n'en resta cependant que vingt-trois. Les officiers et les hommes que le
!^ea Kins retint comptalent en tout quarante-deux, et ne formaient gut>re que la mollis
de oe qn'il Ini fallait, ce qui Tobligea h se servir de ses machines.
D prit le nom de Shenandoah, et continua sa route sous le pavilion des iusurg^s.
II. — Dimarch^ du consul anglais d T^niriffe^ et leurn suites,
8. Le 12 BOTembre 1864, Lord Russell re9ut du consul anglais li T<^n6riffe nn
rapport d^taill<$, dat<$ du 30 octobre, sur ce qui 8'<Stait pass^ dans les eaux de Mad^re.
Le consul envoyait dgalement Corbett, capitaine du Sea King, prisonnier eu
Angleterre. Le rapport du consul anglais dit entr'autres: Le Laurel arriva le 21
fietobre an port de T6n<Sriffe pour faire du charbon; le patron Ramsey se pr^senta
aa coosalat et exprima le d^sir de d^barquer qnaraute-trois passagers qui desiraient
retoumer en Angleterre par la premiere occasion ; ils veiHiient du steamer britaunique
te Sea King, de Londres, qui avait fait naufrage aupres des lies Desertas.
Le 23 octobre, le Laurel se remit en voyage. Cependant le patron du Sea King ne se
I>rt':ientait pas pour faire prendre les declarations d'nsage et demander assistance ; les
infonnations que fit prendre le consul dtablirent que le Sea King n^avait pas fait
naufrage da tout, mais qu'il avait d<5j^ ^t^ veudu k Londres et devait 6tre livrd en
]»k>ine mer.
Le consul entendit les depositions faites sous serment de quatre matelots que Ton
arait d^barqu^s. Ces depositions constataieut que le Laurel etait parti de Liverpool
ft\e€ la destination de Kassau; qu41 emportait vingt-six officiers et soixaute-denx
128 ARBITRATION AT GENEVA.
officers and sixty-two sailors in addition to her proper crew, sixty-five
shells, five tons of cannon-powder, and various other munitions; that
at Madeira she had taken in 300 tons of coal ; that the transshipment to
the Sea King had been effected at a point off the Desertas during calm
weather; that the sailors were armed with cutlasses and revolvers;
that the officer in command had taken possession of the Sea King iu
the name of the insurgent States.
9. On the 1st November, 1864, the law-officers of the Crown gave
their opinion on the report of the consul at Teneriffe and on the sending
ofCorbettas a prisoner to England. Among other things they say,
" We are not of opinion that a vessel outside of British waters is sub-
ject to British jurisdiction with regard to what takes place on board
her.'' (British Case, p. 153.)
10. Further inquiries in London ; examination of sailors who had re-
turned.
11. December 1, 1854. Second report of the law-officers; in this
second report the same law-officers declare that "on more deliberate
consideration, if the Sea King ought to be deemed to have been still a
British ship when Captain Corbett endeavored to induce the men on
board her to accei)t the confederate service, the question whether her
deck was not then ' a place belonging or subject to Iler Majesty,' is a
serious question which ought also to be raised by the indictment. In
our former report we stated that we did not think a British mprchant-
ship at sea was included within Her Britannic Majesty's dominions, iu
the sense of the act ; but, in the second clause, there are also the other
and larger words above noticed, to which we did not then advert, and
which might perhaps receive a more extensive construction." (British
Case, p. 155.)
12. On the 8th December, 1864, Lord Bussell communicates to Lord
Lyons the report of the consul at Teneriffe. He adds that, on the retnru
of the sailors, an inquiry will be instituted, and that, by the advice of
the law-officers of the Crown, a prosecution had already been directed
against Corbett.
marina outre son propro dquipage, soixante-cinq obns, cinq tonnes do poiidre h canon,
et di verses aiitrcs munitions; qu'il embarqua i\ Mad^re !iOU tonnes de charboa ; que le
transbordenient ;\ bord du Sea King s'etait fait sur un point des Desertaa par ane mer
calme; que les niarius furout armds de sabres et de revolvers.
L'ofQcier commandant prit possession du Sea King au nom des dtats insnrg<^9.
9. Le 1" novenibre 18G4, les jurisconsultes de la couronne britannique donn^rent
leur pri^avis sur le rapport du consul de T6u6rit£e et sur Renvoi de Corbett couime
prisonnier en Angleterre; ils y discnt entr'autres: ''Nous ne souimes pas d'avis qn'un
vaisseau hors des euux britanuiques est soumis h la jurisdiction britauuique pour ce
qui se passe sur son tillac/' (Mdmoire anglais, p. 153.)
10. £nqu6te corapUlincntaire i\ Londres; audition de marins retourn<^^.
11. Le 1-"^ ddcembre 1864, deuxi^me rapport des jurisconsultes. Dans ce deuxi^me
rapport les mdmes jurisconsultes ddclarent que "apH^s une plus mftre d^ib<^ration, si
le Sea King doit £tre consid^r^ comme ay ant tonjours conserve la nationalite
britannique au moment oh. le capitaine Corbett a essay^ de decider les hommes h, son
bord h accepter le service conf^d^r^, on peut se demander si le pont de ce navire
n'^tait pas alors un lieu dans la ^nj^tion on an pouvoir de sa Msgestd; et c'est nne
question 8<Srieuse que Faccus&tion devra ^galement soule^er. Dans notre pr^c^dent
rapport, nous avons formula Popinion qn'uii vaisseau de commerce britannique ne
rentrait pas dans les domaines de sa M^jest^ britannique, selon le sens de Tactf ;
mais la deuxi^me clause renferme d'autre part des termes plus larges quo nous venom
de signaler, que nous n'avions point alors en vae, et qui seraient peat*^tre sasooptibles
de recevoir uue interpretation pins 6tendae." (M^moire britannique, p. 155.)
12. Le 8 d<^cembre 1864, Lord Russell commonique h. Lord Lyons le rapport da
consul de T^n^riffe, et 11 ajoute qu'au retoar des mat^lots Ton eutamera ane enqn^te;
que sur le pr^avis des jurisconsultes de la couronne Tenqudte 6tait d^Jft entam^
centre Corbett.
OPINIONS OP MR. ST^MPFLI. 129
13. Result of this last proceeding; iicquittal of Corbett by the jur
III. — Conduct of the Shenandoah at Melbourne.
14. On the 25th January, 1865, the Shenandoah arrived at Port
Philip, in the colony of Victoria, and anchored in Hobson's Bay.
Toward the middle of November, 1864, the mail left Europe and
reached Melbourne about the middle of January, bringing the news re-
specting the Sea King and her transformation into the Shenandoah.
15. On the 25th January, 1805, the American consul protested against
the admission of this vessel and demanded her seizure of the governor.
The law-officers were consulted ; the governor answered, on the 30th,
by a refusal.
It vfSis decided on the same day by the council that the captain of the
Shenandoah should not be asked for the commission of his government.
16. February 10. The American consul to the governor; protest
against enlistments.
February 13. The law-officers find the evidence sufficient.
February 13. The governor determines to await the report of the
police authorities before taking action.
February 14. The chief commissioner of police reports : " Waddell re-
fuses to allow his ship to be searched, saying tJiat he will oppose force by
forced
February 1-4. Decision of council to request Waddell to reconsider his
resolution of forcible opposition. Suspension of permission to make re-
pairs. Reply of Captain Waddell. The order of suspension is revoked.
The law-officers of the Crown, subsequently consulted as to the re-
fuel of Captain Waddell, stated to Lord Russell in their report of the
21st of April, 1865, that " the right of forcibly executing a warrant on
a belligerent vessel did not exist, but that an order to leave the port at
ouce would be the consequence.''
17. Subsequent steps of the American consul with respect to the en-
listuieuts.
13. £6saltat de cetto derni^re enqudte: acquittement de Corbett par Ic jury.
III. — Ce que fit le Skenandotih d Melbourne,
1-4. Le 25 Janvier 1665, le Sbeuandoah arriva k Port Philippe, colonie Victoria, et
jeta I'ancrc dans la baie de HobHon.
Vers la mi-novembre 1864, le conrrier partit d'Europe et arriva vers la mi-janvier t^
Melbourne, apportant les nouvelles coilcernant le Sea King et sa transformatioD en
Shenandoah.
15. Le 25 Janvier 1865, le consul am^ricain protesta centre radmission de ce navire
nen demanda la saisie au gouvernenr. Les conseillers l^gaux farent entendns; le
Kouverncnr r6pondit, le 30, par uu refus.
Le couseil d6cide le nidme jour qu'il ne sera pas demand^ au capltaine du
Shenandoah la commission de son gonvernement.
16. F^vrier 10, le consul am^ricain au gouverneur: reclamation centre des
fun'demente.
F^vrier 13, les conseillers l^gaux trouvent les preuves suffisantes.
Fcvrier 13, le gouverneur d^ide d'entendre le bureau de police avant de donner
"•aite.
Fovrier 14, le comraissaire en chef de la police rapporte : Waddell refuse de laisser
faire des rc<.'herches sur son vaisseau, diaant qu^il opposerait la force d la force.
F^^vrier 14, di^cision dn conseil de faire prier Waddell de revenir sur sa r^olution de
n'oppoaer par la force. Suspension de la permission de faire les r<Sparations. B^ponse
lu capitaine Waddell. L'ordre de suspension est riSvoqu^.
Les jurisconsultes de la couronne, consults plus tard quant au refus du capitaine
VVa<ldeU, d^clarerent ^ Lord Russell, dans lenr pr^avis dn 21 avril 1865, que " le droit
d*ex6cuter an mandat sur un vaisseau des bollig^rants par la force n'existait pas, mais
«iae la somination de quitter le port tout de suite en r^ulteraif
17. IMniarches ultdrieures du consul am6ricain concernant les enrdlements.
9b
i
130 ARBITRATION AT GENEVA.
On the 17th February, the consul first goes to the office of the chief
commissioner of police, whom he does not find in ; then goes to the
houses of x>ar]iament to find the attorney -general, who requires a
written deposition made on oath. Thence he repairs to the office of the
detective police, and there receives answer that no action can be taken
without a warrant. The magistrate declares himself unable to take
upon himself to issue a warrant on the deposition of a single witness,
and refers him to Mr. Call at Williamstown, who might have evidence in
his possession from the water police.
It was about 7 o'clock in the evening. Seeing how little inclined the
authorities were to act, the consul determined himself to take the deposi-
tion. A copy of it was brought, on the same night, to the attorney-
general, but he was no longer at the houses of parliaiuent.
18. The Shenandoah left on the morning of the 18th of February.
19. It was stated, and the governor of Melbourne himself states in a
circular, dated February 27, 1865, that a considerable number of sailorH^
intended to re-enforce her crew, had been taken on board the Shenandoah be-
fore she left the port on the 18th of February. (British Case, p. 168.)
20. Nor is it denied that she took on board 300 tons of coal, which,
added to the 100 she had already on board, made 400 tons. (See sup-
plementary quotation in consideration No. Ill, letter (?, post,)
The committee of officers appointed to report as to the repairs of the
vessel only stated that the Shenandoah was not fit to proceed to sea as
a steamship.
IV. — Cruise and final fate of the Shenandoah.
21. On leaving Melbourne, the Shenandoah went to the Pacific, and
thence through Behring's Straits to the Arctic Ocean, where she de-
stroyed the American whalers which she met. It is asserted that
she burned fifteen vessels after Ca])tain Waddell knew of the termina-
tion of the insurrection. She remained registered as an English vessel
until the 17th of October, 1865.
Le 17 f(6vricr, le consul se rend d'abord au bureau dn chef de la police, quMl ne
tronve pas cbez lui ; puis va trouver Tattorney- general au Parleinent ; celui-ci
demands nne deposition 6crite faite sous serment. De lik, il se rend au bureau de la
police secrete : on lui r^pond que Ton ne pent agir sans mandat. Le juge d'instruction
d^clara ne pouvoir prendre sur lui de donner un maudat d'arrdt sur Ics ddpositious
d'un seul t^moin, et le renvoie chez M. Call, a Williamstown, lequel pourrait avoir des
t^nioignages de la police du port.
II etait environ 7 heures du soir ; voyaut le pen d'empressement des fonctiounaires,
le consul se d^cida & recevoir lui-nienie la deposition. Copie en fut apportde le ra6me
soir, & 9 heures, h Tattorney-general, mais il ne se trouvait plus k la chambre.
18. Le Shenandoah partit le \S f^vrier, dans la matinee.
19. II fut constate, et le gouverueur de Melbourne le coustat'e lui-mduie daus uue
circulaire du 27 ffivrier 1865, qu^un iwmhre considerable de manns destin^v d renforcer
Viquipage avaient 4U re^us d bard du Shenandoah avant quHl ne quitt&t le port,* le 18
fevrier. (Mdmoire britannique, p. 168.)
20. II n'est pas contests non plus qu'il prit 300 tonnes de charbon, ce qui, a^ioute aux
100 qui setrouvaient dejii h son bord, faisait 400 tonnes. (Voyez citation compieuentaire
dans le consid^rant N" III, litf. d, ci-apr5s.)
Les experts officiols deiegu^s pour les reparations du uavire coustat^reut seuleinent
que le Shenandoah n^etait pas capable de prendre la mer com me narire d vapeur.
IV. — Croisih'e et nori final du Shenandoah.
21. Au sortir de Melbourne, le Sheuaudoah se reudit dans Toc^an Pacifique et d«>^
1&, par le detroit de Behriug, dans I'ocean Arctique, oil il detruisit leA baleiniers
americains qu'il y rencontra. On pretend qu'il y brdla encore quiuze vaisseanx apres
que le capital ne Waddell eut eu oouuaissance de la fin de Finsurrection. 11 resta
enregistre comme vaisseau anglais jusqn'au 17 octobre 1865.
OPINIONS OF MR. ST/EMPFLI. 131
On the 6th November, 1865, Waddell brought the vessel back to
Liverpool, where slie was handed over to the United States. Waddell
declared that he learned of the surrender of Lee on the 28th June, but
that he still knew nothing of the insurgent government having come to
ail end, of which he did not become aware until the 2d of August.
(B.)— Considerations.
I. — Conduct of the British authorities up to the moment of the departure of
the Sea King and Laurel on the Sth October^ 1864.
(a.J The previous acts of the Florida, Alabama, and Georgia sliould
have rendered the British authorities more active, with a view to pre-
venting the repetition of similar acts.
(b.) And yet nothing was done either to secure an increase of vigil-
ance, or with the view of originating more effective measures of dis-
covery and pursuit, or of supplementing the municipal law where nec-
essiiry.
(e.) The transfer of the Sea King to the name of Wright of Liv^erpool,
who was closely connected with one of the principal partners of the
lirni of Fruser, Trenholm & Co., (September 20, 1864,) coupled with the
embarkation of cases containing cannon and arms on board the Laurel,
would have furnished sufficient grounds for intervention, had there been
any disposition to take the initiative.
(c/.) The objection, often repeated, that English law and English legal
proceedings do not admit of such an initiative being taken, cannot be
sustained, according to the three rules and the general rule of law
quoted above.
(c.) Nevertheless, one might hesitate to consider these first facts, by
themselves, as sufficient to establish a violation of neutrality on the part
of Great Britain, without at the same time examining the subsequent
career of the Shenandoah.
Le 6 iiovenibre 1865, Waddell ramena le vaissean k Liverpool, oil il fat reniis anx
^tats-lJiiis. Waddell d^clara avoir appris la capitalatiou de Lee le 28 jiiin, malH
ii*avoir encore rieu sii de la cessation du gouveruemeut des insurgt^, qiiMl n^apprit que
ie 2 aofit.
( B. ) — CON8lDf:UANTS.
I.— Cotiduitc det* auioriteit briianniques junqu'cu moment de la »orfie du Sea King ei dw
Laurel, le 8 octobrc 1864.
a) Les actes pr^c^/dents du Florida, de TAlabama et du Georgia devaieut susciter
plus de vigueur de la part des antorit<5s britanuiques, a6n d^emp^cher la rdpdtition
d*actes de la memo nature ;
b) Et iKiurtant il ne se tit ricn, ui pour reutbrcer la vigilance, ui en vue de prendre
line uieilleure initiative dans le but de d^couvrir et de poursuivre, ni pour comp]<5ter len
loi.H iniinicipalcs oil il pouvait Hva necessaire qu'elles le fussent.
r) La transcription du Sea King au nom de Wright de Liverpool, qui etait en relar
tion intinie avec un associ^ principal de la luaison Fraser, Trenliolm et C'', (le 20 sep-
u^iubre 1864,)jointe au chargement de caisses coutenant des canons et des armes a
liord dn Laurel, aurait fonrni assez de motifs d'intervenir, s'il yavait eu de I'initiative.
d) L'objection souvent r<^p^t4^e que los lois anglaises et la procedure anglaise ue
)>erniettent pa» nne pareille initiative u'est pas soutenable, d'apr^s les trois regies et la
regie g^ii^rale de droit cit(^e plus bnut.
e^) Cepeiidant. ron pourrait hilsiter k voir dans ces premiers actes seuls des motife
<mflisaiits de violation de noutnilit^delapartde laGrande-Bretagne.si Ton n'esaininail
t*n mcine t^inps la suite des aventuresdu Shenandoah.
132 ARBITRATION AT GENEVA.
11. — Conduct of the British authorities from the departure of the Sea King
and the Laurel to the events which toolc place at Melbourne.
(a.) The communications sent on the 12th of November, 1864, by the
British consul at Teneriff'e to Lord Russell, and the depositions made on
oath on the 14th of November, 1864, by two sailors returned from Ma-
deira, contained convincinji^ proof that the Sea King* and the Laurel
had been furnished, in English ports, with everything necessary, in the
way of armament, stores, and equipment, to enable the Sea King to be
transformed, on the high seas or in any waters within the jurisdiction
of a state, into a ship of war or into a privateer against the United
States.
(b,) The British authorities recognized in this, it is true, a violation
of their neutrality; but their only attempt to remedy it was defective
in two points:
(a^.) In England, judicial proceedings were directed to be tiiken
against Corbett only, the former master of the Sea King, and that, again,
on the score of recruitment only; no proceedings were directed against
the master of the Laurel, or those who freighted that vessel, or against
Wright, the owner, at least in name, of the Sea King. It is unneces-
sary to say that Corbett's acquittal does not modify the question of
international law.
(hb.) The British authorities took measures against the perpetrators
only, and not against the results of the violation of the law. In partic
ular, they omitted to inform all the colonial authorities ot the empire
of the illegality which attached to the ship, thenceforward known as the
Shenandoah, and to provide them with instructions to seize the vessel
if an opi»ortunity should occur.
III. — Conduct of the British authorities at Melbourne.
(a.) It is certain that the authorities of this colony received from
London neither commuuicatious nor instructions concerning the Shen-
II. — Conduite des auiorit^n hritanniqties depuis la 8ortie du Sea King et du Laurel jwsqu'aHx
faiis arrives d Melbourne.
a) Led comninnications envoydes le 12 uovembre 1864, par le consul britaiiniquf>
<ie T^D^rifi'e dk Lord Giissell, ot les depositions fait^es sous serment le 14 uovembre 1864.
par deux niatelots revenus de Mad^re, constataient d^mo mani^re convaincante qne K*
Sea King et le Laurel avaient 4t6 pr<^par<$8 dans des ports anglais avec tout ce qui ^tait
n^cessnire, en fait d^irmeinent, d'appareil et d'dquipement, pour fournir au Bea Kiu|;
les moyeus de se transformer, en pleiue mer on dans des eanx quelconques sous juridie-
tion d'6tat, en vaisseau do guerre ou en corsaire contre les fitats-Unis.
h) Les autorit^s britanuiques reconnurent en cela, il est vrai, une violation de
Icur neutrality, mais elles ne cberch^rent ^ y remduier que d'une mani^re ddfectueu.^e
}\ un double point de vne.
a a) En Angleterre il n'y eut de ponrsuite jndiciaire ordonnc^e qne contre Corbett,
aucien patron du Sea King^ et encore ne le fut-elle que sous le cbef d'enr61enient ; Fon
omit de diriger des poursuites contre le patron du Laurel ot les affrdtcurs de ce navire.
ainsi que contre Wrigbt, propridtaire, au moins de nom, du Sea King. II va sans diiv
que racqnittement de Corbett ne modifie point la question du droit des gens.
b b) Les autoritds britanuiques ne dirig^rent leurs mesures que contre les persou-
nes, et nuUement contre les r^sultats de la violation de la loi. Elles omirent uot-ani-
ment d'informer toutes les autorit^s colouiales de Tenipire de Fill^galite attach^e an
nay ire, connn d^s lors sous lo nom de Shenandoab, et de leur fournir des instructions
en viio de saisir le vaisseau, le cas ^chdant.
III. — Conduite des auUnii^ brUanniquea a Melbourne.
a) 11 est oonfitate que les autorit^s de cette colonic ne re^urent de la m^tropole ni
commuuications ni instructions concemant le Shenandoab ; bien que, depuls I'dpoque
OPINIONS OF MR. ST^MPFLI. 133
aiuloaYi ; altboagh, from the time when the authorities in London knew
of the criminal character of the vessel, (in the middle of November,
1804,) to the moment of her entmnce into Melbourne, (January 25, 1865,)
there had elapsed sufficient time for the transmission of such instruc-
tions. The observation made in the British pleadings, that allowance
mast be made for the inexperience of the authorities at Melbourne, is
without force from this fact.
{b,) The authorities at Melbourne showed themselves, in several
respects, negligent in the maintenance of their sovereignty as a neutral
country in the ciise of the Shenandoah:
(aa.) They waived the production of the commission which the cap-
tain held from the insurgent States. (British Case, p. 161.)
(bb.) They suffered a refusal of their right to search the vessel for
the purpose of discovering British subjects, illegally enlisted, on board
of her; and they submitted to the threat used by the captain, that he
would oppose force by force, without immediately taking serious meas-
ures against him.
Tlie report of the law-ofiicers of the Crown, which holds that, against
a refusiil of this kind, there was no course open but to compel the ves-
sel to leave the port, is not correct, according to international law, for
use might be made of a similar refusal to carry out and conceal with
impunity violations of neutrality in neutral ports.
(cc.) The only measure taken in consequence of this refusal consisted
in the suspension of the permission to repair which had been granted,
a measure which, however, was withdrawn on the mere representations
of Waddell.
{(id.) The manner in which the amount of repairs necessary for the
vessel was ascertained, and in which their execution was watched, was
but imperfect. (Report of Captain Payne; British Case, p. 169.)
(c.) It is ascertained that the crew of the vessel was augmented before
lier departure from Melbourne by a considerable number of sailors, in
spite of the constant remonstrances and complaints of the American
oil les autorit<$s de Londres conniirent le caractere criminel da vaissean (mi-novembiv
1864) jusqa^au moment de Tentr^e dii vaissean h Melbourne, (25 Janvier 1865,) il y efit
en saffisamnient de temps pour transmettre ces instructions. L'observation pr<^8entoe
par les m^nioires anglais, qu'il faut pardonner quelque chose k Tinexp^rience de.s
jiutoriti^s de Melbourne, est par le fait mSme sans port<5e.
b) Les autorit^s de Melbourne se montr^rent, k plusieurs ^gards, u^gligentes dans
le uiaintien de lenr souverainot^ conmie pays neutre, vis-ii-vis du Shenandoah.
a a) EUes renonc^rnt k se faire exhiber la commission que la capituine tenait deM
f'tatJi insurg^s, (m^^moi^ britannique, p. 161.)
b h) EUes se iaiss^rent refuser le droit de faire des perquisitions ^ bord du naviro
eii vue ay d6couvrir des sujettf anglais ill^^ralement enr61<^s, ct elles accepteront la
menace faite par le capitaine, de repousser la force par la force, sans prendre imm^-
«liatenient des mesures sdrieuses contre lui.
Le pr^4ivis des jurisconsultes de la conronne, portant que, contre nne r^uitencc do
ce genre, il n'y avait pas d'autre moyen h employer que celui de forcer le uavirc a
quitter le port, nVst pas juste, d'apr^s le droit des gens; parce que Von pourrait so
aervir d*une pareille r^uitence comme d'un moyen de completer et de cacher impuud-
raent des violations de la neutralit^S dans des ports ncntres.
c c) La senle mesure que Ton prlt contre cette ri^nitence consista k snspendre la-
{HsriJiission qui avait ^t^ accord^e de faire des reparations, mesure qui du roste fut
retii^e snr le^ simples representations de Waddell.
d d) La coustatation des reparations reellement n^ccssaires an vaissean et la
surveillance de lenr execution ne se firent que d'une mani^re ddfectueiisc. (Rapport
du capitaino Payne; m^moire britannique, p. 169.)
r) II est constate que Tequipage du vaissean fut renforce, avant son depart de
Melbourne, d^in nombro considerable do marins, malgre les denonciatious et les.
134 ARBITRATION AT GENEVA.
eonsul. (Circular of the governor of Melbourne of fhe 27tli February,
1865; Britisb Case, p. 163.)
{d.) It appears also to be proved that the vessel was allowed t« take
on board 3()0 tons of coal, which, added to the 100 tons she already
lijwl, made 400. (So says the American Consul Blanchard to the gov-
ernor; American Appendix, vol. vi, p. 698, and American Case, p. 347.)
In *^The Cruise of the Shenandoah," by Hunt, it is moreover said that
there were 300 tons taken in, wljich, with the 100 tons she already had
on board, gave a sufficient supply for the cruise which was contem-
plated. (American Api)endix, vol. vi, p. 698.)
According to the report of the official experts, (British Case, p. 162,)
the Shenandoah was not fit to go to sea as a steamship; from which it
may be inferred that, as a sailing vessel, she was fit to go to sea. (Com
pare the report on the repairs of the Florida at Bermuda; British
( Counter Case, p. 127.)
The supply of coal was not, therefore, a necessary condition of the
neutral asylum, and, in supplying her with so large a quantity of coal,
the capacity of the ship for making war was increased, just as much as
by the recruitment of her crew which took place.
(C.) — Judgment.
In the acts which hav^e just been enumerated there exists a violation
on the part of Great Britain of the obligations of neutrality laid down
by the three rules; consequently Great Britain is resi)onsible for the
Ameri(?an ships which were destroyed by the vessel in question.
V. — THE SUMTER.
(A.) — Facts.
1. The Sumter was a cruiser of the insurgent States, equipped in their
ports ; she left the mouth of the Mississippi and commenced
cruising on the 30th of June, 1861.
rf)c1aniatioiiH uoii-iutcrrompueB du codsiiI amdriciiin. (Circiilaire du gouverneur de
Melbourne du 27 tV^vrier 1865 ; niemoire britannique, p.- 163.)
d) II parait aussi dtabli qu'il fut permis au vaisseau d'embarquer 300 tonnes dt*
<;harbon, ce qui, ajout^ aux 100 tonues qu'il avait encore, en faisait 400. (Cost oe qnt»
dit le. consul ani^ricain Blanchard au gouvenieur; appendice amc^ricain, tome vi,
p. ()9d; et ni<^iuoire anicricain, p. 347.) *' La Croisii^sre du Shenandoah," par Hunt, dit
]»ar contie quMl y eut 300 tonnes embarqndes, ce qui, ajout<^ aux 100 qui s'y trouvaient
tMicoro, faiHait une provision Bufiisante pour la croiaibre que I'on avait Tintentioii
il'entreprendre. (Appendice am<5ricain, tome vi, p. 698.) Selon le rapport dew
experts otiieiels, (niemoire britannique, p. 162,) le Shenandoah, en fcant que vaisseau
a vapeur, n'etait pas capable de mettre en mer, d'oit Ton pent conclurc que, comme
voilier, il pouvai t tenir la mer. (Comparer le pr^.avis snr les reparations pour le Florida
a Berraude. (Contre-m(^moiro britannique, p. 127.)
L'approviHionneraent de charbon n'6tait done pas une obligation de Tasile neutre; et
en lui fburniv^sant une si forte quantity de charbon, on renfor^ait la capacity du vais-
seau h faire la guerre tout aussi bien quVn augmentaut son Equipage, comme on I'avait
fait.
(C.)— JUGEMENT.
Dans les fails qui vieunent d'Atre <^nuni6r^, il existe une violation, de la part de la
(irande-Bretagne, des obligations de neutrality d^t^rmin^es par les trois regies. £n con-
s<^quence, la Grande-Bretagne est respousable pour les ua vires am<^ricaius qui out ^U'
^l/»truit« par le vaisseau en question.
LE .SUMTER.
(A.)— Faits.
1. Le Sumter etait un croiseur des ^tats insurg^^, <5quip6 dans leurs ports; il sortit
•des passes du Mississippi et commeu^a ses courses le 30 juin 1861.
OPINIONS OF MR. ST.EMPPLI. 135
2. After haviug made six prizes, she first entered the Spanish port of
Cienfuegos, (Cuba,) where she took in coal. On the 15th of July, 1861,
8lie arrived at the Dutch port of Saint Anne, in the island of Cura^oa,
there took in coal, and staid eight days. On the 30th of July she
reached the British port of Trinidad, after having made in all eleven
prizes since her departure from the waters of the Mississippi ; she re-
mained six days in this port, and there shipped a complete supply of
coal. After having left Trinidad, the Sumter touched, among other
places, at the port of Paramaribo, (Dutch Guiana,) where she took in a
stipply of coal, from the 9th to the 31st of August; at Port Royal, in
Martinique, where she took in coal and remained fourteen days, from
the 10th to the 23d of November; at Cadiz, where she staid fifteen
days; she put in, on the 18th of January, 1802, at Gibraltar, after
having made six fresh prizes since her departure from Trinidad.
3. The Sumter remained at the port of Gibraltar until December,
1863, when she was disarmed and sold by public auction.
The oflicers, among whom was Captain Semmes, who subsequently
commanded the Alabama, abandoned the vessel and went to England.
4. From February, 1862, there had been United States ships of war
stationed in the waters of Algeciras, to wateh the Sumter.
5. The representatives of the United States at Gibraltar and London
protested against the sale of the Sumter as fictitious and inadmissible,
according to international law.
6. On the 9th of February, 1863, the Sumter escaped from Gibraltar
and arriv^ed at Liverpool ; she remained there till the 3d of July, was
from thence employed as a transport-ship, and left that port under the
name of the Gibraltar, carrying a cargo of heavy artillery. What be-
frame of her afterward is not exactly known. It only appears, from the
evidence, that United States ships still watched her for several months
after she left Liverpool. (The Connecticut, from the 3d of August to
September, 186*3 ; United States Appendix, vol. iv, p. 120, table.)
•2. Apres avoir fait six prises, il entra iVabord an port espagnol de Cienfuegos, (Cuba,)
oil il einban^ua du charbou ; le 15 juiUet 1861, il arrivaau port hollandaiade Ste.-Anne,
daos Tile de Cura^iio, y euibarqua dn charbon et y s^journa huit jours ; le 30 juillet,
il atteiguit le port britanuique do la Triuiti^, apr^s avoir fait en tout onze prises depuis
Ha sortie den caux du Misaissippi ; il resta six jours daus co port et y fit uu complet ap-
pro vision n emeu t de charbou; aprt^s avoir quitt<^ la Triuit^, le Sumter toueha encore,
eiitr^autres, aux ports de Paramaribo, (Gnyane hoUaudaise,) oil il s'approvisionna de
charbon, du 9 au :U aotit ; de Port Royal a la Martinique, oil il embarqua du charbou
et rej»ta qnatorze jours, du 10 au 23 uovembre; de Cadiz, oh il s^jourua quinze jours ;
il entra, le IH Janvier 1862, h Gibraltar, apres avoir fait six nouvelles prises depuLs son
depart de la Trinit<5.
3. Le Sumter resta au port do Gibraltar jnsqu'cn d<^cembro 1863, dpoque ii laquelle
il flit d^sarm<!^ et vendu aux encheres publiques.
Lrcs oflicioi-s, parmi lesciuels so trouvait le capitaine Semmes, plus tard commandant
de TAlabama, abandonn^rent le valsseau et se reudirent en Angleterre.
4. D^ le tnois de f^vrier 1862, il y avait en des navires de guerre des ^tats-Unis
stationn<^s dans les eaux d*Alg6sras pour guett^r le Sumter.
5. Les repr^seutants des fitats-Unis h Gibraltar et h Londres protesterent contre la
vente dn Snmter, comnie fictive et inadmissible d'apr6s le droit des gens.
6. Le 9 f<^vricr 1863, le Sumter s^^cliappa de Gibraltar et arriva ^ Liverpool ; il y
resta jusqn'au 3 juillet, fut de h\ employ^ couime vaisseau de transport ot quitta ce
jvort sons le nom de ''le Gibraltar,'' emportant uue cargaison d'urlillerie do gros calibre.
On nc sait pas an juste ce qu'il devint dans la suite. II ressort seulement des pieces
que des vaisseau x de guerre des ^tat«-Unis le guett^reut encore plusieurs mois apr^s
sa sortie de Liverpool. (Le Connecticut, du 3 aoilt jusquVn septembrc 1863 : appendice
americain, tome iv, page 120, tableau.)
136 ARBITRATION AT GENEVA.
(B.) — Considerations.
I. — Respecting what took place up to the moment of the vessePs entry into
Gibraltar.
{a.) With the exception of her stay, and the supply' of coal which the
Sumter took in at Trinidad, none of the acts in question took place
within British jurisdiction ; consequently, Great Britain is responsible
for nothing which occurred before the arrival of the Sumter at Trinidad.
(b,) The permission given to the Sumter to remain and to take in coal
at Trinidad, does not in itself constitute a sufficient basis for a^^cusing
the British authorities of having failed in the observance of their duties
as neutrals; because this fact cannot be considered by itself, since
the Sumter, both before and after that time, was admitted into the ports
of many other states, where it staid and took in coal, and it is proved
that the last supply she obtained to cross the Atlantic did not take
place in a British port; so that it cannot be held that the port of Trini-
dad served as a base of operations for the Sumter.
II. — Respecting the permission to stay, and the sale of the Sumter at Gib-
raltar,
(a.) The stay of the Sumter, as an armed ship of war of the Confed-
erate States, at the port of Gibraltar, from the month of January to the
month of December, 18()2, was less the result of her being in distress
than a refuge from the danger arising from the ships of the enemy.
(6.) The granting of such shelter is contrary to the second rule of the
treaty, according to which a neutral port must not serve as a base of
operations to belligerents, and, consequently, must not serve them either
as a refuge from the enemy, while giving them, at the same time, the
opportunity of leaving it at will.
(c.) The objection which is made that the Sumter entered Gibraltar
( B. ) — Consid6rants.
I. — Concernant ce qui eepawia jusqtCau moment de V entree du vaUseau <i Gibraltar,
a) X Vexception da n^jonr et de rapprovisionnement qae fit le Suintor il la Trinito,
aucuQ des fails en question n'eiit lieu dans la juridiction britaunlque; par cous<5queutY
la Graudc-Bretagne n'est responsable pour rien de ce qui se passa avant Tarrivde du
Sumter k la Trinity.
h) La permission donn^e au Sumter de sojourner et de faire du charbon }\ la
Trinit<S ne constitne pas k elle soulo une base sufllsante pour que Ton puisse accuser
les autorit^s britauniques d'avoir mauqu^ ii leurs devoirs de neutrality; car ce fait
ne pent dtre consid^r^ isoldment, puisquc, avant et apr^s, le Sumter avait ^t^ admis
dans les ports de plnsieurs autres ^tats, oil il s^ourna et fit du charbon, et qn'il est
constat<^ que le dernier approvisionnement qu'il fit pour traverser Toc^Sau Atlantique
n'eut pas lieu dans un port britannique: de sorte que Tou ne saurait pr<^tendre que le
port de la Trinity ait servi de base d'op<^rations au Sumter.
II. — Concernant la permUslon de s^jour et de vente du Sumter a Gibraltar,
a) Le s^jour du Sumter comme vaissean de guerre arm^ des 6tats-conf(6d^r6s au
port de Gibraltar, depuis le mois de Janvier au mois de d<^cembre 1862, fut moins la
suite d'un ^tat do d^tresse qu'uu asile centre le danger provenant de vaisseaux
eunemis.
b) Une pareille concession d'asile eat en d<^saccord avec la 2* regie du traitt^,
d'apr^s laquelle un port noutre ne doit pas servir de base d'op<fTations aux beUig<Srants :
par consequent, ne doit pas non plus leur servir de lieu de refuge centre Pennemi, tout
en leur laissant la p08sibilit'<^ d'en ressortir a vo1ont<^.
c) L'objection qui est faite que le Sumter (^tait entrt*^ k Gibraltar avant la publica-
OPINIONS OF MR. STiEMPFH. 137
before the publication of the official circular of the 31st of January,
1862, which limits the stay of belligerent vessels in neutral ports, is
imiuaterial; for,
{(L) Even without the publication of that circular, the granting of
shelter which took place would have been contrary to the duties laid
down in the second rule, and to the principles of a real and effective
neutrality.
(r.) Moreover, to interpret the circular of the 31st January, 1862, in the
sense that it related only to the ships of belligerents which should in the
fnture enter British ports, and not to those which were alreadj' in them,
is in opposition, if not with the letter, at least with the sense and spirit
in which the circular was published.
(/.) The disarmament and sale of the Sumter after she had been eleven
months in the port of Gibraltar were the continuation and conclusion
of the course pursued up to that time, and which consisted in saving the
^hip, her armament and her crew, from the enemy ; and these acts were as
little in conformity with the maintenanceof a real and effective neutrality
as the whole of the proceedings from the beginning, and the less so
because they were accompanied by the following circumstances in
Jifjgravation :
{g.) The sale of the ship was only fictitious, as appears from the
tlocuments ;
The proceeds of the sale of the arms, &c., were paid over to the treasury
ot the insurgents;
The officers of the vessel and the rest of her crew remained at liberty,
and a certain number of them re-entered shortly afterwards the service
of the in8urgent States.
(h.) According to the principles of neutrality observed on land, men
who seek refuge from the enemy are disarmed, and the munitions they
bring with them are seized and not restored till the end of the war; the
anthorities of Gibraltar ought to have acted in like manner, or else they
ought to have compelled the vessel with her armament and crew to leave
the port within a stated time, providing her with a safe conduct as far
as the limits of British jurisdiction.
tion de la circnlaire minist^rielle du 31 Janvier 1862, laquelle limite la durde du sdjour
des vaisseaax belltg<^rants daiiH Ie8 ports neutres, est sans port^e ; car,
d) M^me Hans la publication do cctte circnlaire, la concession d'asile qui eut lieu
eOt <^te en disaccord avec les devoirs d<^coulant de la r^gle 2 ot des principes d'une
ueutralite rdelle h eflfectner.
e) £n oatre, interpr<^ter la circnlaire du 31 Janvier 1862 dans le sens qu'elle no
devait coucerner que les navires des belli^rants qui entreraient in Pavenir dans les
ports britAnniqnes, et non ceux qui s'y trouvaieut ddji\ alors, c'est se mettro en ddsac-
conl, «inon avec la lettre, dn moins avec le sens ot Pesprit dans lesquels cette circnlaire
fnt publi<^e.
/) Le ddsarmement et la vente du Sumter an bout de onze mois do sdjour dans lo
IK>rt de Gibraltar fnrent la continuation et la conclusion du procddd suivi jusqu'alors,
et <|ni cousistait ^ sauver de Pennemi le vaisseaUf son armement et son (^(^nipage ; ot
(*es acies anssi furent aussi pen confornies an uiaintien d'une uentralit(^ rdelle et effec-
tive qne tout le proc^l6, des lo commencement, et cela d^autant moins qu'ils dtaient
acconipagnds des circonstances aggravantes suivantes.
g) ha vente dn vaisseau no fut que fictive, ainsi qu'il appert d'apr^s les actes:
Le prodnit de la vente des armes, &c., fut versd dans la caisse des insureds ;
Les officiers dn vaisseau et le rest<3 de V^^quipage rest^rent en <^tat do liberty, et un
certain nonibre d'entr^enx rentreront, pen do temps apr^s, an service des dtats insurg^a.
h) D*apre8 les principes do neutrality observes sur terro, les homnies qui cberchent
un refuge contre renuemi sont d<^saruids et internes, le materiel quMls emporteut est
saisi et n'est restitnd au'^ la fin de la guerre : les autoritds de Gibraltar anraient dd
agir d'une maniero analogue, on bien elles anraient dd forcer le navire, avec son arme-
ment ct son Equipage, & quitter le port, dans un ddlai fix6, sauf ^ le pourvoir d^in sauf-
rondnit jusqn'aux Umites de la jnridiction britaunique.
138 ARBITRATION AT GENEVA.
JUDCtMENT.
1. Great Britain has uot failed iu lier duties, as laid down in the three
rules, in respect to the Sumter, up to the entrance of that vessel into
Gibraltar, and is not, therefore, responsible for the ships destroyed bv
the Sumter.
2. On the other hand, Great Britain has violated the second rule iu
affording a protracted shelter to the Sumter, and in permitting the dis-
armament and pretended sale of that vessel in the port of Gibraltar, and
is, therefore, res])onsible for the sum for which the Sumter, her anna
ment and equipment were sold, for the expense of watching her by the
ships of the United States before the wat^^rs of Gibraltar, during the
whole period of the stay of the Sumter in that port, and for the expense
of her pursuit alter her departure from that port.
VI. — THE RETRIBUTION.
<A.) — Facts.
1. This vessel was originally a United States screw steamship, the
Uncle Ben, and was built at Buffalo in 1856.
Shortly before the attack on Fort Sumter she had been
sent to the south coast of the United States. Stress of weather obliged
her to put into the Cape Fear Biver. There the insurgents took posses-
sion of her, and turned her into a schooner. She went to sea again under
the name of the Ketribution, and cruised in the neighborhood of the
Bahamas.
2. In the month of December, 1802, she captured the American
schooner Hanover, and took her prize to Fortune Island or Long Cay,
j[one of the Bahamas.)
The captain of the Retribution, one Locke, alicis Parker, went before
the authorities of the port with the papers of the Hanover, represented
himself as the master of that vessel, under the name of Washington Cavse,
and stated that he had been shij) wrecked on one of the neighboring
islands, and that he was in distress ; that he had been bound from Boston
(C.)— JrtiKMKNT.
1. La Grando-Bretagne n'a pas niaiiqu<^ u ses devoirs, d^coulant des trois rcgle.s, eu
ce qui coucerne le Sn inter jnsquVt rentroe do co vaisseau k Gibraltar, et cUe uVst, par
cou8<^(luent, pa^ responsable pour les destructions de navires effectudes par le Sumter.
2, Par coutro, la Grande-Bretagne a viole la ^^f5le 2 eu accordant un asile prolonj;«"
an Sumter et eu tolerant le ddsarmemcnt et la preteudne vente de ce vaisseau <lan8 le
port de (Gibraltar, et elle est, par coM8<^queut, responsable pour le prix de vente dn
Sumter, de son arniement et de son equipement, pour los frais de surveillance par lej*
navires des l^tats-Unis devant les eaux de Gibraltar, pendant toute la dnn^e du st'jonr
cjue fit le Sumter dans ce port, et pour lea frais do sa poursuite apr^s son d<5part de rt»
port.
LE RKTltlBUTIOX.
(A.) — FArrH.
1. Ce vaisseaii 6tmt dans Porigine la vapeur a h<?lice I'Uncle Ben, des fitats-Uuis, et
avait 6t6 construit h Buffalo, en 1856.
Pen de temps avant I'attaquo du fort Sumter, il avait ^16 envoyd sur los cM^s mt'^ri-
dionales des Etats-Unis. Le mauvais temps Tobliffea j\ ontrer dans le fleuve du Cape
Fear, hh, les insnrgc^s s'en empariirent et le transform^rent en schooner. II reprit la
mer sous le nora de Retribution et croisa dans le voisinage des Bahamas.
2. Au mois de ddeembre 1862, il captura le schooner ani<5ricaiu le Hanover, et amena
sa prise j\ Pile Fortune on Long Cay, (Tnne des Bahamas.)
Le capitaine de la Retribution, nonim<^ Locke, alias Parker, se pr<^senta aver le*»
papiers du navire le Hanover aux autoritds du port, se fit passer pour le patron de ce
navire sous le nom de Washington Case, et rapporta qu'il avait fait nanfrage ii Tune des
lies voisines et quMl <5tait en aetresse; qu'il avait ^t^ destine de Boston 4 la Ha vane
OPINIONS OF MR. ST.i^MPFLI. 139
to Havana, with liberty to seek another market; that his instructions
authorized him to dispose of his cargo, and to make use of the proceeds
to take in a cargo of salt, and to run the blockade with it.
The ship's papers were examined and found to be in conformity with
his declarations; they were indeed made out in the name of the mas-
ter, Washington Case, and it was under this name that Locke was ad-
mitted into the port with the Hanover, and tliat the ship's cargo was
exchanged for one of salt.
3. Later, on account of remonstrances made by an American agent,
Locke was prosecuted at Nassau, on account of tliis act. The iirst time
he was released on bail, and succeeded in escaping trial by taking flight
and forfeiting his bail, (October, 1863.) Tiie second time, having made
the same voyage again, he was acquitted by the court for want of evi-
dence to prove his identity, (February, 1805.)
4. Previous to these judicial proceedings the Retribution had also cap-
tured, in the neighborhood of Castle Island, the American brig Emily
Fisher, carrying a cargo of sugar. The master of this latter vessel,
named Staples, relates what happened iu the following manner:
The prize having been made, the captor made an arrangement with
some wreckers and then stranded the vessel, after which the wreckers
took possession of her; and she was then brought back to Long Cay,
accompanied by the Retribution.
Tlie master of the Emily Fisher was not allowed to take possession
of his ship again until he had paid 50 per cent, of the price of the
cargo, and 33J per cent, of the value of the vessel, to the wreckers.
When he had made this payment he was replaced in possession by the
<'dlector; the authorities declared that the law would not allow the
cruiser to touch the brig, but that, even if they wished, they had no
means of preventing it; and, finding himself under the guns of the
•cruiser, he had preferred paying what was asked of him.
In the British counter case it is admitted that this statement may be
true, that there had been a conspiracy between the captain of the Ret-
avec facult^^ do cherclier uii autre inarch^ ; (|iie ses instructions I'autorisaient h disposer
lie la car^aisun, et ii eu employer le prod ii it i\ faire iin chargeuiunt do sel et h traverser
le blocns avec ce cbar^ement.
Les papiers dii navire furent exaroin<^s et troiiv<^s conformes aux declarations; ils
otuieiit t'li eiFet an uom du patron Washington Case, et ce fut sous ce nom que Locke
Alt adniis au port avec le Hanover et que la cargaison du navire fat chang^e contre nue
<Io scl.
3. Plus tard; ^ la suite de d<^nouciations faitcs par nn agent am<^rieain, Locke fut
}K)arsaivi eu justice k Nassau, a cause de ce fait ; la premit^re fois, il fut reldch6 sons
caution, et r^nssit ii se soustraire k la procedure en prenant la fuite otabandonnantson
cautionneinent, (octobre 186.3.) La seconde fois, ayant refait le ni6me voyage, il fut
acqnitt^ par le tribunal, faute de preuves constatant son identity, (f<^.vrier 1865.)
4. Ant<^rieurenicnt ^ ces procdd^s judiciaii^s, le Retribution avaitaussi capture dans
le voisinage de Castle Island le brick amdricain Emily Fisher, portant une cargaison
de Biicre. Le patron de ce dernier vaisseau, nomm^ Staples, raconte ce qui s'est pass^^
de la man i ere snivante :
La prise fiiite, le capteur ^tait entr<5 en relation avec qiielques tcrcckers et avait en-
naite IViit <5chouer le navire; apr^s quoi les wreckers sVn (^taient empar<Ss; e u suite il
avait et-^ rameu^ a Long Cay sous la conduite du Retribution.
Lui, patron de TEniily Fisher, ii'avait 6t6 en ^tat de reprendre possession de son vais-
»eau qu'il nVftt paye aux wreckers 50 pour cent du prix de la c^irgaison, et 33^ pour cent
(le la valeur du vaisseau. Lorsqu'il eut di^pos^ce paiement, il avait 6t6 remis en pos-
session par le coUectenr ; les autorit^s avaieut d6clar^ que les lois ue permettraient pas
aa croiseur de t-oucher au brick, mais que, quand mc^me elles le voudraicnt, elles n'au-
raieot aucun moyen de remp^cher ; et, se trouvaut sous les canons du croiseur, il avait
mienx aim^ payer ce qu'on lui deniaudait.
Dans lo coutre-m^moire britannique, on recounatt que cet expose peutfitro vrai, qu'il
y avait eu complot entre le capitaine du Retribution et les wreckers en vue d'extorquer
140 ARBITRATION AT GENEVA.
ribution and the wreckers, with a view to extorting money from the
brig, from which, as a prize, he would otherwise have been able to ob-
tain nothing; but that no complaint had been made against the
authorities of the colony, and that, since then, nine years had elapsed,
o. The Retribution thereupon went to Nassau Bay, was sold there on
the 10th of April, 1863, there changed her name to that of the Etta,
and both these transactions were registered by the authorities at Nas-
sau. On her first voyage to New York as a transport she was recog-
nized as tlie former Eetribution, and was seized by the authorities and
/sold.
(B. ) — Considerations.
(A.) — What took place respecting the Hanover,
The British authorities are not responsible in this matter, since they
were deceived in regard to the entry and sale of the prize at Long Cay,
and since, from the manner in which this fraud was committed, they
(fan not be accused of culpable negligence.
Nor can any responsibility be attached to the subsequent acquittal,
for this act, of Captain Locke by the courts at Nassau, inasmuch as it
is not shown that there were any evident defects in the proceedings or
the judgment.
(B.) — What took place respecting the Emily Fisher.
It appears to be proved that, in British jurisdiction, by means of a
conspiracy between the captain of the cruiser and some of the crew of
the wrecking vessels, exactions were practiced on this vessel after she
had been captured and brought into the waters and port of Long Cay ;
and that the authorities of the port were aware of it, the affair having,
so to speak, taken place before their eyes; that, notwithstanding, these
authorities did not take any steps, either with a view of affording
efficient protection, or with a view of instituting judicial proceedings,
de Targent au brick, dont il n'aurait sans cela rieu pa retirer comme prise; mais qa'il
n'y avait pas eu de plainte port6e coutre Jes aatorit6s coloniales, et que, depuis lors,
nenf ans s'^taient ^coul^s.
5. LiVdessus, le Retribation se rondit dans la bale de Nassau, y fut vendn le 10 avril
1863, y cbangea son nom en celui de "Etta," et I'an et I'autre de ces actes furent enregis-
trds par les autorit<58 do Nassau. Lors de sou premier voyage h. New York, en qualitt^
de transport, il y fut reconnu comme I'ancien Retributiou, et fut s<5que8tr^ par les
autorit^s et vendu. *
( B.)— CONSIDi^RANTS.
(A.) Ce qui se pa&sa concernant le Hanover*
Les autorit<^s britanniques n'en sont pas responsables, puisqu^elles furent tromp^es
quant & Fentrde et ^ la vonto de la prise ^ Long Cay, et que, de la mani^re dont cette
tromperie fut commise, il ue pent leur ^tre reprochd de u6gligenco coupable.
II u'y a pas nou plus de motif de rcsponsabilit^^ dans Pacqnittenient subsequent, pour
ce fait, du captuine Locke par les tribunaux de Nassau, puisqu'il n'est pas ^tabli quMI
y alt eu des d<^fauts <Svidents dans la procc^dure et le jugement.
(B.) Ce qui sepassa conc^'nant V Emily Fisher.
11 paralt constats que dans la juridictiou britannique, au moyen d'un complot form^
entre le capitaine du croiseur et quelqucs hommes d'<^quipage de bateaux de sauvetage,
il fut commis des exactions coutre ce vaisseau, apr^s qu'il eut 6t^ capt-ur^ et anieni^
dans les eaux et le port de Long Cay ; et que les autorit^s du port en avaient connai^-
sance, les choses s^^tant, pour aiusi dire, pass<^e8 sous Icurs yeux ; que, nonobst-ant cela.
ces autorit<^s n'avaient pas fait une scule d-marche, ni eu vue d^accorder protection
effective, ui eu vue d'eutamer des poursuites jndiciaires, ni en faisant rapport aux
OPINIONS OF MR. ADAM8. 141
or by reporting to their superiors whiit was taking place ; that, more-
over, and as a sequel to these acts, ou the 10th of April, 1863, seven
we<*ks after the events which had taken place, the sale and change of
name of the Retribution took place, and that these transactions were
registered by the authorities at Nassau.
(C.) The objections made by Great Britain, that it was not until
uine years after these acts took place that a claim is made with respect
to the Emily Fisher, and that Long Cay is a distant and little frequented
port, are immaterial, because the nature of the offense committed at
Long Cay made it the duty of the authorities to interfere officially, or
10 report to their superiors; and because, even if at the time of the
commission of the offense, there was not on the spot a force to prevent
it, it was, nevertheless, the duty of the authorities, immediately after-
ward, to take ever^- step to repair it, even that of insisting that meas-
ures should be taken against tbe belligerent by whom the cruiser was
commissioned.
JUDGMENT.
Great Britain did not fail to observe her duties as a neutral with
res[)ect to the facts which concern the Hanover ; on the other hand,
in regard to the Emily Fislier, she did not fultill her duties as a neu-
tral, and is responsible on this head.
OPINIONS OF MR. ADAMS.
I. — DUE DILIGENCE.
These words, which are found in the first and third of the rules
prescribed by the treaty of Washington, for the govern-
ment of the arbitrators in making up their judgment, have ou,..i.i.*.
given rise to much discussion in the preparatory arguments of the
oppasing parties.
^ne ce D'cst que neuf ana apres les fuiU accomplis que Tou rdclame au sujet tie
UEmily Fisher et que Lou^ Cay est uu port peu freciuent<5 et <?cart6— u'ont pas d'im-
autorit^ supdrieures de ce qui Be passait; que, bien plus, et en suite de ces faits, le 10
avril 1863, sept semaines apres les ^v<^nenient8 qui avaient eu lieu, la vente et le chauge-
nient da noiii de Retribution 8*eifectu^rent et i\ne ces actes furent enregistr^s par Jos
autorit^^ ^ Nassau.
(C.) Les ohfections quepr^aente la Grande- Bretagne —
Q-
portance, parce que la nature du d^lit commis a Lou*; Cuy fnisait aux autorit^ uu df*
voir d'intervenir d'office ou do faire rapport aux autorit^s supi^rieurcs, et que quaud
ineme, an moment de la commission dn d6lit, Ton u'avait pas sur place la force de Tem-
pecber, les autoritesavaiont, cepcndant, le devoir do faire imm<Sdiatcment apr^s touteH
\vA d-marches pour y reui^^'dier et m(>me celui d'insister pour qu'il filt pris des mesurrs
contre le bellig^rant, commettant du croiseur.
(C.)--JuGEMKN'i.
La Grande-Bretagne n'a pas niauqud ^ ses obligations do neutralitf» relativcment aux
faits qui concernent le Hanover ; par contre, pour ce qui concerne I'Emily Fisber, elle
n'A pas satisfait i\ ses devoira de neutrality, et elle est responsable de ce cbef.
LK8 "DUES DILIGENCES."
Ces mots, qui se trouveut dans la premiere et dans la troisieme des regies prescriteH
par le traitiS de Washington, pour servir <le guide aux arbitres, pour former leur juge-
went, ont donn^ lien k beauconp de discussions dans les expos^^s pri^paratoires des par-
ties opposantes.
142 ARBITRATION AT GENEVA.
On the side of Great Britain, an explanation of them is given in the
0th, 10th, and 11th propositions, hiid down on the 24th and 25th pages
of the ease.
The subject is again considered in pages 21 and 22 of the volume
called the Counter Case.
It is again referred to in the 8th and 9th pages of the volume called
the Argument or Summary.
Lastly, it is treated in a more general way in the argument presented
by Sir Koundell Palmer, counsel on behalf of Her Britannic Majesty, on
the 2r)th July last.
On the side of the United States, an explanation is presented in pages
150 to 158 of the volume called The Case.
It is again rel'erred to in the sixth page of the Counter Case.
The subject is a^ain treated in pages 316 to 322 of the Argument or
Summary.
Lastly, it is discussed in a more general way in the argument sub-
mitted bv the counsel on behalf of the United States on the 5th and 6th
of August.
The objection which J am constrained to admit as existing in my mind
to the British discussion is, that it appears to address itself for the
most part to the establishment of limitations to the meaning of the
words rather than to the explanation of the obligations which they
imply.
The objection which 1 am constrained to find to the American defiui-
tion is that I do not find the word '' due" used in the sense attributed
to it in any dictionary of established authority.
Yet it does not appear to me so difiicult to find a suitable meaning for
these words. Perhaps it may have been overlooked from the very ftict
of its simplicity.
I understand the word diligence to signify not merely work, but, to use
a familiar phrase, work with a will.
The force of the qualifying epithet ''due ''can be best obtained by
tracing it to its origin. All lexicographers derive it from the Latin
verb " debere," which itself is a compound of two words '' de-' and
Du v6U' <le la Graudc-Bretagne, un« «^xplication eu est doDU^^ dans les O"*®, 10™*' ct
1 1»"« propositions posees, pages 24 et 25 du ''Case."
Lesujet est de nouveau consider^', page»< 21 et 25, du volume appel<^ le "Connter-case."
II y est encore fait allnsiou, pages 8 et 9, du volume nomme ** Argument" oa ** Sum-
mary.''
Eufiu il est traite d'une maniere plus gdnerale daus le plaidoyer pn!^sentfi par Sir
Ii(»undell Palmer, conseiller de sa Majeste britannique, le 25 jnillet dernier.
Du vC)t6 des fitats-Unis, nne explication est presentee, pages 150 a 1.58 du volume
nomm<^^ le '* Case."
II y est encore fait aliusiou, page 6 du *• Counter-case.''
Le snjet est de nouveau trait<$, pages 31(i ii 322 de •'I'Argumeuf' ou " Summary.''
Enfiu il est discutd d'une mani^n-e plus g<^n<5ralo daus le plaidoyer pr^^sente paries
couseillers des £tats-Unis, les 5 et 6 aoCit.
L'objection que je suis oblig<^ d'admettre com me existaut dans mou esprit h regard
des arguments anglais est, qu'ils s<miblent s'appliquer pour la phipart k ^tablLi' des li-
mitations du sens de ces motJs, plutOt que de Tobligation qu'ils impliqueut.
L'objection quo je suis oblig(^ de faire A la d^JiDition am^ricaine est que je ne trouve
pas le mot "due" employ^ dans le sens qui y est attribu^, daus aucnn dictionnaire
d'une autorit^ reconnue.
Cependant il ue me semble pas si difUcile de trouver un sens couvenable pour ce^
mots. Peut-etre a-t-il dchapp^ par le fait mr>me de sa simplicity.
Je comprends que le mot "diligence" signifie, nou pas simplement agir, mais agir de
bon ccour.
La force de l'^pitliet« qualificative "due" pent fttre mienx trouv^e eu remontant a
son origiue. Tons les lexicograpbes la font d^river du vorbe latin dcbert. qui est lui
OPINIONS OF MR. ADAMS. 143
"habere," which means *' quasi de alio habere" — that is, in English, to
have of or from another.
Assuming this to be the iniinary meaning, I now come to the second
step. The iirst having implied something received by one person from
another, the second implies equally an obligation incun-ed thereby.
'*Dehere,"in Latin, means to owe. In French it becomes " devoir,"
which is equivalent to debt, to duty, or to obligation. In English it is
thus defined by two eminent authorities :
Richardson: '' That which is owed; which any one ought to have,
has a right to demand, claiu), or possess."
Webster: "Owed; that ought to be paid or done to another; that is
(iiie from me to another, which contract, justice, or propriety requires
me to pay, and which he may justly claim as his right.''
I have searched a great variety of other authorities, but do not cite
them, as they only repeat the same idea.
Hence it may be inferred that the sense of the words "due dili-
gence" is that of "efirnest labor owed to some other party," which that
party may claim as its right.
But, if this definition be conceded, it must naturally follow that the
nature and extent of this obligation cannot be measured exclusively by
the judgment or pleasure of the party subject to it. If it could, in the
ordinary transactions between individuals, there would be little security
for the faithful performance of obligations. If it were not that the
party to whom the obligation has been given retains a right to claim it
in the sense that he understands it, his ])rospect of obtaining justice in
a contested case would be but slight.
If this view of the meaning of the words be the correct one, it fol-
lows that, when a neutral government is bound, as in the first and third
rules laid down in the treaty for our guidance, to use "due diligence" in
regard to certain things, it incurs an obligation to some external party.
lueine compose de deux mots de et habercj ce (pii signifie quasi de alio habtre — c'est-a-diro,
HI fran^ais : avoir ou tenir d'un autre.
Ed adniettant que ceci est la premiere signification, j*arrive maintenaiit a la scconde.
Li preI^i^re iuipliqnant iju'nne personne a re^u quelque cbuse (\\\u autre, la Hi?cond<'.
iuipliqiie^galement quHuie obligation s'en ent suivie. Debere, en latin, signitif, en ani^lais^
"toowe." En fran^ais^il devient "devoir," ccquidquivautadette, devoir ou obligation.
Fill anglais, il est d61ini ainsi par denx auturit^'s <^uiinente.s :
Richardson: **Ce qni estdil; ce que quelqu'un doit avoir; ee qn'il a le droit de
demander, de r^clamer on de possdder."
Webster : " DA ; ce qui doit Hre. p{iy<5 on fait a un autn^; ce qn'on doit a un antrt* ; co
qu'an contrat, la justice ou la proj)riote exige qne Je paje, et ce qu'il pent justcuient
reclamer comme son droit.-'
.rai cberch^S un grand noinbred'autresantorit^s, mats je ne les cite pas, parce qu^elics
ni* font qne rep^ter la m^me id6e.
De lion peut inffSrer que le sens des mots "due diligence" est celni d^un travail
«<*rieux di\ i quelque autre person ne, que cette pei'sonne peut reclanier comnie Hon
<iroit.
Mais si cette d^tinitiou est admise, il doit naturel lenient s cnsuivre qne la natnn^ et
lotendue de cette obligation ne peuvent pat) ^tre estim^es exclusivcinent si^Ioii lo
jugement ou le plaisir de la persoune qui y est soumise. Si cola (^tait possible; dans
les transactions ordinaires entre individus, il y aurait pen d»* adcurite pour I'accom-
pliflsement fiddle des obligations. Si ce n'^tait que la personne envcrs huinelle i'obli*^ni-
tion a 6x6 contracture conserve le droit de la r<?clamer dans \v sens oil elb^ I'entond, sa
ohance d*obtenir justice dans un cas conteste ue serait que lei^ere.
Si cette maniere d'envisager le sens des mots estexacte.il s'eusnit qun lorMiirmi
goavernement neutre est tenu, couime dans la pivniit^re et dans la troiKitMiio regie
\»os^sdans le traite pour nous servir de guide, d'exercer *'<lue <liligenct*" j\ iVgarU do
(x^rtaincs choscs, il encourt envers quelque autre partie une ol-li^at;o!i d'«nr il n'c^^t
144 ARBITRATION AT (lENEVA.
the nature aud extent of which it is not competent to it to measare ex-
clusively by its own will and pleasure.
Yet the assumption that it is competent appears to me to underlie the
whole extent of the British position in this controversy.
It may, indeed, be affirmed that no sovereifi:n power in the last resort
is accountable to any other for the results of the exercise of its own
judgement, arrived at in good faith.
This proposition may be admitted to be true in point of fact; but it
is obvious that proceedings under it gain no sanction under anj' law
but that of superiority in physical force.
To escape this alternative, resort has been had to an attempt at defi-
nition of a system of rights and obligations, to which the assent of
civilized nations imparts authority in the regulation of their reciprocal
duties.
Under that system all the nations recognizing it are placed on a per-
fectly equal footing, no matter what the nature of their relative force.
To borrow a sentence from the British counter case —
Her Majesty's government knows of no distinction between uioro dignified aud less
dignified powers ; it regards aU sovereign states as enjoying equal rights, and equally
subject to all ordinary international obligations; and it is firmly persuaded that there is
no state in Europe or America which would be willing to claim or accept any immuuity
in this respect on the ground of its inferiority to others in extent, military force, (»r
population.
Admitting this position in its fullest extent, it may, at the same time,
be affirmed that, if Her Majesty's government were to enter into a con
tract with these various states, as a neutral power, to use due diligence
in certain emergencies, not one even of the smallest of them would fail
to deny that Her Majesty's government was the exclusive judge of the
measure of its obligations, contracted under those words.
What is then the rule by which the actual performance of this duty
pa« competent pour estimer exclusivement, d'aprfes sa volont^ proproet son bon plaisir.
fa nature et IVtendue.
Cependant la supposition qu'il est competent me semble scrvir de base k toiite la
position anglaise dans cette controverse.
On t)eut en efiet afilrmer qu'aucune puissance souveraine en dernier ressort n'a a
rendre compte a une autre pour les resultats de lV>xercice de sou propre jugemeut fait
de bonne foi.
Cette proposition pent 6tre admise comme vraie en fait, mais il est certain qu'une
conduite qui s'y confornie ne gague ancune sactiou d'aucuue loi si ce n'ost de ceUe d'uno
superiority en force physique.
Pour <Schapper t\ cette alternative on a eu recours a une tentative pour di^finir uu
8yst<^me de droits et d'obligations, auqunl rasseutimeut des nations civilisees donne
autorit(^ dans le r^glenient de leurs devoirs r^ciproques.
D'apr^s ce systeme, toutes les nations qui le reconnaissont.sout plac<5e8 sur uu
pied parfaitement egal, n'importe la nature tie leur force relative. Pour emprunter
une phrase du "counter-case" auglais:
"Le gouycrnement de sa Majestd . . . ne connalt aucune distinction entre d«*»
])uissances plus on moinselevees en digoitd; ilregarde t,ous les ^tats souverains comme
jonissant de droits 6gaux, comme dgalement assujettis a toutes les obligations ordi-
nairesinternationales; il a la ferme conviction qu'il n'est paseii Europe ou en Am^rique,
un seul <?tat, qui veuille pr^teudre ni accepter a cet egard aucuue exemption motivoe
sur son inf6riorit<S relative comme territoire, comme puissance militaire ou comme
population."
£n aduiettant cette position dans toute son dtendue, ou pent affirmer en mSme temps
que, si le gouvernement do sa Majestd dovait faire un coutrat avec ces divers etats
comme puissance neutre pour exercer "due diligence" dans certaiues circoostances, ii
n'est pas un des plus petits d'entr eux qui manquA.t de uier que le gouvernement de sa
Migestd ffiit le juge exclusif de la mesure de ccs obligations contractures d'apr^s res
mots.
Quelle est done la r^gle d^apr^s laquellc on pent estimer raccomplissement efiectif
OPINIONS OF MR. ADAMS. 145
can be estimated ? It seems to me tolerably plain. Wliatever may be
the relative position of nations, the obligation between them rests upon
the basis of exact and complete reciprocity. Hence the compact em-
braced in the words " due diligence.'' must be fulfilled according to the
construction placed upon the terms by each separate nation, subject to
reasonable modifications by the just representations of any other nation
with which it is in amity, suffering injury from the consequences of ii
mistake of negligence or intention. These may very naturall.y grow out
of the great differences in their relative position, which should properly
be taken into consideration. In the struggle which took place in Amer-
ica, *'dne diligence " in regard to the commercial interests of one of the
belligerents meant a very different thing from the same words applied
to the other. The only safe standard is that which may be reached by
considering what a nation would consider its right to demand of another,
were tlieir relative positions precisely reversed. If the due diligence
actually exercised b^^ one nation toward another does not prove to be
exactly that diligence which would be satisfactory jf applied to itself
niider parallel circumstances, then the obligation implied by the words
has not been properly fulfilled, and reparation to the party injured is no
more than an act of common justice.
Such seems to be the precise character of the present controversy.
Her Majesty's government denies that the measure of diligence due by
her as a neutral to the United States as a belligerent, during the late
struggle, was so great under the law of nations as it has been, with
her consent, made by the terms of the treaty. But, in either case,
she claims to be the exclusive judge of her fulfillment of it, apart from
the establishment of this tribunal, to which she has consented to appeal.
But this very act implies the consciousness of the possibility of some
debt contracted in the process by the use of these terms that may justly
be claimed by another party. Of the nature and extent of that debt,
and how far actually paid, it is the province of this tribunal to deter-
de C6 devoir? EUe me semble aasez claire. Qnelle que soit la positiou relative des
natione, I'obligatioti autre eUes repose sur la base d'exacte et compI^.t>e r^ciprocitd.
Des lors le coiitrat coinpris sons ces mots *'dae diligence" doit Hto rempli d'apr(>s I'iu-
terpr<Statiou donn^e dea termes par chuque nation prise sdpardment, sujette a des
ino<liftcations raisonnables de lapart desrei)r6sentations jastes de quelque autre nation
avec laqnelle elJe est en rapport d'amiti6, sou ffrant des dommages ensuite des conse-
quences de malentendu ou de n<^gligence, ou d'intention. Celles-ci peuvent naturelle-
went d^eoYiler des grandes diit'erences dans lenr position relative, qui doivent etre
prises en considdration. Dans le confiit qui eut hen en Au)6ri<[ue "duo diligence-' par
rapport aux int^rfits commerciaux de Tun des bellig<^rants avait un tout autre sens que
Ics m^mcs mots appliques 2)1 Pantre. La seule pierre de toucbe est celle que I'ou peut
tronver en consid^rant ce qu'une nation croirait avoir le droit de rdclamer d'une autre,
6i lenrs positions relatives ^taient 2)r6cis^ment inverses. ISi la " due diligence "eflecti ve-
ment exerc^ par une nation envers une autre ne se montre pas ^tre exactenient cette
"diligence" qui serait satisfaisante si elle lui ^tait appliqu^e dans des circonstances
analogues, alors TobUgation irapliqu6e par les mots n'a pas ^t^ bien remplie, et une
reparation envers la partie l^stSe n*est plus qu'un acte de simple justice.
Tel paratt 6tre le caractere precis de la prdsente controvert^e. Le gouvernement
de sa Majesty nie qne la mesure de diligence due par lui comnie nentre aux
£tat8-Unis comme belUg^rant, pendant le dernier conflit, fdt aussi grande, d'apr^!$ lo
droit des gens, qa'elle a ^t^ faite avec son conseutenient par les termes du traiul.
Mais' dans les deux cas il pr^^tend 6tre le juge exclusif de la mani6re dont eUe Ta
accompli, tk Texception de r^tabltssement de ce tribunal, auquel elle a consenti j^ eu
appeler. Mais cet acte lui-ui6me implique, parl'emploi de ces termes, la conscience de
la possibilit<S de quelque detto con tractive dans Tanaire, et qui peut justetueut etre
reclame par ane autre partie. Quant ^ la nature et i\ I'dtendue de cette dette, et
josqu'oh elle a 6t4 payde effect! vement, il appartient ii ce tribunal d'en d<Scider, aprei
10 b
146 AKBITHATION AT GENEVA.
iniDe, after fall consideration of the evidence submitted. Such is the con-
struction 1 have placed upon the words "due diligence."
n. — THE EFFECT OF COMMISSIONS.
This question has been discussed, more or less extensively, in the
Frtvct «f commit psipcrs and arguments before us.
f lUni'.
On behalf of Great Britain it is claimed that the rule is
perfectly established that a vessel belonging to any power recognized
as sovereign, or as a belligerent, has, in virtue of its commission, a
right to claim a reception, and the privilege of extraterritoriality, with-
out regard to its antecedents, in the ports of every neutral iwwer.
The authorities quoted to sustain this position sustain it as an estab-
lished general rule. I see no reason to question it.
But the question that has been raised in the present controversy i«
an exceptional one, which is not touched by these decisions.
The reception of vessels having an origin exclusively or even par-
tially American, and bearing on their front no evidence of fraud or
violence, does not seem to have been brought into question in this con-
troversy. Such vessels were the Sumter, the Nashville, the Tallahassee,
the Chickamauga, &c.
The case is dili'erent in regard to that class of vessels which derive
their origin exclusively from a systematic and fraudulent abuse of the
amity of a neutral power, setting at defiance its laws within its own
jurisdiction, and taking advantage of its forbearance in the ho])e of in-
volving it the more with its opponent in a responsibility for tolerating
its own misdeeds.
It admits of no question, in my mind, that the outfit and equipment
of the Florida, the Alabama, the Georgia, and the Shenandoah were
each and all made in defiance of the laws of Great Britain and the in-
junction of the Queen's proclamation of neutrality. By this conduct
mi examen complet des preiives qui Inl ont 6t6 soumises. Telle est Tinterpr^tation que
j'ai donn^e des mots ''due diligeuce.'^
IJrFVET DE8 COMMISSIONS.
Cette question a 6t6 discutiSe d'une mauiere plus ou moius d^veloppde dans les docn«
lueiits et plaidoyers devaut uous.
Du c6t^ de la Grande-Bretagn^ on pr<^/tend que la regie est parfaitement ^tablie
qu'un vaisseau, appartenant h un pouvoir quelconque reconiin coninie souverain ou
comnie bellig6rant| a, en vertu de sa coniiuiBsion, le droit de r^clamer une reception et
lo privil<5ge d'extra-territorialitd, sans <5gard ^ ses aut<Scddeuts dans les ports de toute
puissance neutre.
Ltfs autorit<^.8 citi^es pour appujer cette position la soutiennent comme une r^gle
gdn^raie ^tablie. Je ue vois pas de raison de la uiettre en question.
Mais la question soulev^e dans la prdseute controverse oat une question esoeption-
nelle, a laquelle ces decisions ne se rapporteut pas.
La reception de vaisseaux ay ant une origine am<^ricaine en tout ou en-partie, et ne
])ortant sur leur front aucnue preuve de frande ou de violence, ne semble pas avoir dto
juise en question dans cette controverse. Tcls ctaieut le Sumter, le NashviUe, le Tal-
labassee, le Chickamauga, etc.
Le cas est diff<6rent en ce qui concerne cette classe de vaisseux qui tireut leur origine
exclusivement d'un abus syst^matique et fraudulenx du comit«Sd'une puissance ileutre,
mettant au d^ti ses lois dans sa propre juridictiou, et prenant avantage de sa bonne
disposition, dans Tespoir de Tentraluer encore avec son adversaire dans une responsa-
bilit<$ pour avoir tol6r6 ses propres ui^faits.
Je n'en dout« point, la preparation et Tequipement du Florida, de T Alabama, du
Georgia et du Sbenaudoah furent, pour chacun d'eux, fait en d^ti des lois de la Graude-
Bretagne et des injouctions de la x>roclamatiou de neutrality de la Keiae. Par c«tte
OPINIONS OF MR, ADAMS. 147
the perpetrators had nob only clearly forfeited all right to consideration,
but had subjected themselves to the penaltien of malefactors it' they
ever returned within the jurisdiction which they had iusulted. The
rijjht to exclude vessels from British ports on these grounds, without
regard to their commissions, is distinctly affirmed by Sir Eoundell Pal-
mer, one of the lawyers of the Crown during the whole period in ques-
tion, and seems to be indubitable. To deny it would i)lace every
sovereign power at the mercy of any adventurous pirate on the ocean
who might manage to cover himself with the threadbare mantle of the
minutest belligerent.
It is a perfectly well understood principle of law that no citizen of a
foreign nation, excepting, perhaps, in cerUiin cases, a representative
clothed with diplomatic privileges, is free from the obligation of con-
forming himself to the laws of the country in which he is residing. If
he willfully violates them he is subject to the same penalties which are
imposed upon native citizens. Even though not a citizen he is subject
in Great Britain to be tried for quasi treason. If instead of conspiring
against the Queen he enters into combinations which involve the king-
dom in complications with foreign powers with which it is at peace, he
surely cannot come forward and plead the possession of a commission
from the authorities of his own country in his justitication. Neither is
the commander of a ship of a foreign power which comes within the
harbor of another free from the same general obligation. If he violates
any of the regulations prescribed for his government he is liable to pay
the penalty by a withdrawal of his privileges or by an immediate order
of exclusion from the port.
For myself, therefore, I cannot see any reason why the existence of a
commission shoAld have stood in the way of a clear expression by
Great Britain of its sense of the indignities heaped upon Her Majesty's
government by the violation of her laws withiu her various dominions,
continuously persisted in during the existence of this belligerent. In
my opinion it would have justitied the seizure and detention of the
offending vessels wherever found within the jurisdiction. But if that
qn'ils avaient insnltet». Le droit cVexclure des vaisseanx des portn anglain
ponr ces motifs, sans ^gard k leurs commiBMioDS, eat iietteiuent atHnii^ par. Sir Ronudell
Palmer, uu de8 coiiseillerM de ]a couronue peudaut toute la p<^riode eu question, et soin-
ble etre iiidnbitable; le nier serait niettre toiite )ini8sance minveraiue ii la merci de tout
pirate aveatnreiix sur Poc^au qai pourrait rdussir a se couvrir da mauteaa usd dii plus
petit b«ni^i*ant.
C'eat un priueipe ne loi parfaitement bien compris, qu'ancun citoyen d'une nation
<^trangere, si ce ii'eat, pent-^tre, un repr6sentant rtjvc^tu de privileges dip1oniati(pies,
nVst exempt de Fobngatiou de se couformer aux loi.s du pays dans lequel il demuure.
S*il les viole volontairement, il est assujetti aux meinod peines qui sont impos^es aux
citoyeus natifs. Mdme s'il n'est pas citoyen, il est expos<^ on Angleterre ^ 6tre poursuivi
IHinr qiiati trahison. Si, au lieu de conspirer contre la Reine, il entre dans des conibi-
uaisous qui pr^cipitent le royaume dans des complications envers des puissances souve-
raincs avec Ic^cinelles celui-ci est en paix, il ne pent certaiiYetnent pas se pri^Henter et
f^'appnyer pour sa justiiication sur la possession d'nue comniission des autorit<5!) de son
)iropre pays. Le commandant d'uu vaisseau d'une puissance 6trang^re qui vient dans
le ]iort d^ine autre n'est pas exempt Don plus de la mcme obligation g6n6rale. SMI
viole qnelqu'un des reglements prescrits pour sa conduite, il est expusd k subir la
peiue d'uu d<^pouillement de ses )>rivil6gcs ou d'un ordre immddiat d'exclusion du port.
Qnant a moi, par consequent, je ne puis voir aucun motif jiour lequel Pexistence
d'oiie commission anrait enipdchfS nne manifestation netto de la part de la Grandc-
Bretague de sou sentiment des indignit^s amass^es sur le gouvernement de su Majesty
l>ar la violation de ses lois, jdans ses diffdrents dtats, c(mtinnee avec persistance ]»('ndant
I'existence de co belligerant. Dans mon opinion, elle aurait justifl^ la sai^sie et Parrot
des vaisseanx conpables, partout oti ou les aurait trouv^s dans la juridiction. Mais si
148 ARBITRATION AT GENEVA.
were considered inconsistent witb a clear impartiality, it certainly
demanded an entire exclusiou from Her Majesty's ports. The right to
decide such a point rests exclusively with every sovereign power. But
an opportunity was lost for establishing a sound principle of inter-
national maritime intercourse which may not soon occur again.
III. — ON THE SUPPLY OF PROVISIONS, AND ESPECIALLY OF COALS.
This question of coals was little considered by writers on the law of
nations, and by sovereign powers, until the present century.
gowii«o coal. It has become one of the first importance, now that tile
motive-power of all vessels is.so greatly enhanced by it.
The effect of this application of steam-power has changed the char-
acter of war on the ocean, and invested with a greatly preponderant
force those nations which possess most largely the best material for it
within their own territories and the greatest number of maritime placi^s
over the globe where deposits may be conveniently provided for their
use.
It is needless to point out the superiority in this respect of the posi-
tion of Great Britain. There seems no way of discussing the question
other than through this example.
Just in proportion to these advantages is the responsibility of that
country when holding the situation of a neutral in time of war.
The safest course in any critical emergencywould be to deny altogether
to supply the vessels of any of the belligerents, except perhaps when in
positive distress.
But such a policy would not fail to be regarded as selfish, illiberal, and
unkind by all belligerents. It would inevitably lead to the acquisition
and establishment of similar positions for themselves by other maritime
powers, to be guarded with equal exclusiveness, and entailing upon them
enormous and continual expenses to provide against rare emergencies.
ces inesnres <$taient envisag^es comme De s'accordaiit pas avec nue stricte impartiality,
elle exigeait certainement une exclasion absolne des ports de sa Majestd. Le droit de
decider sur uu tel point appartient exclasivement ii toute puissance souveraine. Mais
l^occasion fiit alors perdue irdtablir un principe juste des relations maritiuies interna-
tionales, laqueUe pent ne pas se reprdsenter de longtemps.
LBS SUBSIDES DE PROVISIONS, KT 6P£CIALEMEKT DR CRABBON.
Cette question dn cbarbon a pen 6t6 examinde par ceax qui ont 6cT\t but le droit des-
gens, et par les puissances souveraines, Jnsqn'au si^cleactneL EHeest de venue de la
premiere importance, maintenant que la puissance motrice de tous les vaisseanx en est
si fort ongment^e.
L'efTet de cette application de la vapenr a clian^ le caract^rede la gnerre sur I'oc^aD,
et donne nue force tr6s-pr6pond6rante anx puissances qnl poss^dent en plus grande
abondance les raeilleurs mati^riaux pour cela dans leurs propres territoires, et le plus
grand nombre de places raaritimes sar le globe oh des d6p6t8 peuvent 6tre ^tablis k
propos pour leur usage.
II est inutile de faire remarqner la grande superiority sons ce rapport de la position
de la Grande-Bretagne. II n^ a pas moyen de consid6rer la question antrement que
par sou exemple.
La responsabilit<5 de ce pays, quand il garde la position d'an nentre en temps de
gnerre, est exactement proportionn6e h se^ avantages.
La conduite la plus sdre, dans nne circonstance critique, serait de refuser absolament
d'approvisionner les vaisseaux d'aucnn des bellig^rants, si ce n'est peat-^tre en cas de
d^tresse.
Mais une telle conduite ne manquerait pas d'6tre regard^ comme 6golste, illib^rale,
m^chante, par tout bellig^raut. Elle conduirait in^vitablement k facquisition et k
l^^tablissement de positions semblables pour elles-mdmes, par tontes les puissances
maritimes, pour se garder avec un 6gal exclusivisme; et elle les entralnerait dans des
d^penses <Snormes et continuelles pour snbvenir ^ des circonstances rares.
OPINIONS OF MR. ADAMS. 149
It is not therefore either just or in the interest of other powers, by
exacting severe res|)onsibilities of Great Britain in time of war, to force
her either to deny all supplies, or, as a lighter risk, to engage herself in
war.
It is in this sense that I approach the arguments that have been pre-
sented in regard to the supply of coals given by Great Britain to the
insurgent American steamers as forming a base of operations.
It must be noted that, throughout the war of four years, supplies of
coal were furnished liberally at first, and more scantily afterward, but
still indiscriminately, to both belligerents.
The difficulty is obvious how to distinguish those cases of coals given
to either of the parties as helping them impartially to other ports, from
those furnished as a base of hostile operations.
Unquestionably, Commodore Wilkes, in the Vanderbilt, was very much
aided in continuing his cruise at sea by the supplies obtained from British
sources. Is this to be construed as getting a base of operations !
It is plain that a line must be drawn somewhere, or else no neutral
power will consent to furnish supplies to any belligerent whatever in
time of war.
So far as I am able to find my way out of this dilemma, it is in this
wise:
The supply of coals to a belligerent involves no responsibility to the
neutral, when it is made in response to ademand presented in good faith,
with a single object of satisfying a legitimate purpose openly assigned.
On the. other hand, the same supply does involve a responsibility if it
shall in any way be made to appear that the concession was made, either
tacitly or by agreement, with a view to promote or comx)lete the execu-
tion of a hostile act.
Hence I perceive no other way to determine the degree of the respon-
sibility of a neutral in these cases, than by an examination of the evi-
dence to show the intent of the grant in any specific case. Fraud or
falsehood in such a case poisons everything it touches. Even iudifter-
II a'est, par consequent, ui jnste, ui clans IMntdr^t des antres puissances, en imposant
(lesresponsabilitiSs s^vferes h la Graude-Bretagne en temps tie guerre, de la forcer h refuser
tout subside; on, comma un moindre danger, i\ s'engagerelle-mfime dans la gm^rre.
CVst dans cet esprit que j'aborde les exjmsds qui out 6t6 pr<^sent(5.s quant ^ux subsides
de charbon donn<Ss par la Uraude-Bretagne aux steamers amdricains insurges com me
fonuant nue base d'opdrations.
li faut remarquer que pendant la guerre deqnatre ans des subsides de charbon furent
fournis lib^ralement d'abord, moius abondammeut eusuite, mais toujours indistincte-
ujent, anx deux belligdrants.
La difficult^ est dvidente de savoir comment distinguer les cas de charbon donn<5 2\
cbacun des deux partis pour leur aider impartialeraeut s\ se rendre h d'autres ports, de
cenx oil 11 fnt fourni pour servir comme base d^opdrations hostiles.
II n'est pas douteux que le commodore Wilkes, du Vanderbilt, u'ait 6t6 beancoup aidd,
\Kmr continuersa croisic^re en mer, par les subsides obtenus de sources auglaises. Faut-il
ioterjirdter ceci comme formant uue base d^)pdration8 f
II est clair qu'une ligno doit 6tre tirde quelque part, on autrenient aucune puissance
neutre ne consentlra dr fouruir des subsides dk aucuu belligdraut quelconque en temps de
gnerre sur Tocdan.
Si je puis Bortir de ce dilemme, ce n'est que de cette m<ani^re.
Le subside de charbon h, un belligdraut n'impli(pie aucune responsabilitd du ueytre,
UDaod il est fait en rdponso ii une demande prdsentde de bonne foi dans le simple but
(le satisfaire un desseiu legitime onvertement iudiqnd.
D'autre part, le mfeme subside implique une responsabilitd, si on pent ddmontrer
qne la concession a 6t4 faite, tacitement ou par entente, en vue d'aider ou d'achever
IVx^cution d'un acte hostile.
Des lorsje ne vols pas d'autre raanitire de determiner le degrade la responsabilltd d'un
neutre dans ces cas, que d'examiner la preuve pour faire voir I'intention du subside,
dans chaqae cas particulier. La fraude ou le mensonge dans un tel cas souille tout ce
150 ARBITRATION AT GENEVA.
ence may de*jenerate into willful neglifjence, aud that will impose a bur-
den of proof to excuse it before responsibility' can be relieved.
This is the rule I have endeavored to apply in judging the nature of
the cases complained of in the course of this arbitration.
IV. — THE FLORIDA.
On the 18th February, 18G2, Mr. Adams addressed a note to Lord Rus-
sell, calling his sittention to a letter he had received from
Mr. Dudley, the consul of the United States at Liver-
pool, touching a certain gun-bo.it fitting out at that port, which he had
reason to believe was intended for the use of the American insurgents in
their war against their Government.
On the 19th Mr. Hammond, on behalf of Lord Russell, replied to this
note, apprising Mr. Adams that he ^^ would move the lords commission-
ers to cause immediate inquiries to be made respecting the vessel, aud
to take such steps in the matter as might be right and proi>er.''
On the 22d the commissioners of the customs made a report to the effect
that there was a vessel of the sort described called the Oreto ; that it
liad been built by Messrs. Miller & Sons for Messrs. Fawcett, Preston &
Co., engineers, and intended for the use of Messrs Thomas Brothers, of
Palermo. Messrs. Miller & Sons expressed their belief that her destina-
tion was Palermo.
The fact is now dear that in this statement there was either equivoca-
tion or positive falsehood somewhere between the parties named. The
testimony of Mr. Prioleau, of the firm of Fraser, Trenholm & Co., of Liv-
erpool, agents of the insurgent organization in America, (than whom no
man on earth was more sure to know,) testimony, too, extDrted from him
with great reluctance on his oath in a British court, establishes beyond
dispute the fact that she was built for the order of J. D. Bullock, agent
of the insurgents.
So with regard to the statement made by Mr. S. Price Edwards, col-
*
qn'il touchc. M^me IMndiif^rence pent d^j^^n^rer en n<^gligence volontaire, et cela
iinfiosera le dovoir de ro jnstitier, avaiit d*6rre d<^ehargd de la responsabiliti^.
Tellt^ U8t la ^^;;le qne je nie huis etfbrci^ d'appUquer en jngeant la nature des cas sar
lesciuelH on a fait das r<Suiain:ktions dans le conrs de cet arl>itrage.
LE FrX>RIDA.
Le IH f^vrier 1862, M. Adams adresaa h Lord Rnssell nne note pour nppeler son at'
tention «nr nne lettre qn'il avait re^ue de M. Dudley, le consul des Ctats-Unis a Liver
pool, an siijet d'nne ccrtaine canonuiere, que I'on appareillait dans ce port, et que I'oQ
avait des laisons de croire deatinei^e siseiviraux insnrgda amdricains dans la guerre
quMls soutenaient contre leur Gouvernenient.
Le VJ du mcnie niois, M. Hammond rdpondit, an nom de Lord Russell, en informant
M. Adams quMl engngerait les lords commissaires h faire une onqndte immediate ii
regard de ce vaiaseau et ji prendre les mosures convenables.
Le 2*2, les commissaires des donanes rapport«>rent qu'il y avait nn vaiaseau, semblable
h celui «l<^crit, appel6 POreto; quMl avait 6t6 constrnit par MM. Miller et tils pour MM.
Fawcett, Preston et C®, ingdiiienrs, et (|u*il <5tait destin^^ ii Tusage de MM. Thomas
fr^res, de Palerme. MM. Miller et tils exprimaient leur croyance h cette destination de
Palerme.
II est main tenant &\'6r^ quMl y avait dans ces d<5claracion8 on une Equivoque on uno
fauHseti^ positive impntAble s\ quel(iu*une des dites parties. Le t<^moignage de M. Prio-
leau, de la maison Fraser, Trenholm et C'^, de Liverpool, agents de Torganisation des
insurgc^H am^ricains, personnage qui devait savoir mieux que personno ce qu'il en etait,
et dont le t(^moignnge fut arrach(^ avec quelqne peine, sous serment dans une eonr de
justice anglaise, (^tablit irrdfragablement le fait que ce vaisseaa fut coustruit d'apres
les ordres de J. D. Bullock, agent des insnrg<?s.
Ainsi, quant aux all<5gations de M. S. Price Edwards, rcceveur Ik Liverpool, dans sa
OPINIONS OF MR ADAMS. 151
lector of Liverpool, in his letter of the 21st, transmitted by the commis-
sioners to Lord Russell, that lie had every reason to believe that she was
for the Italian government, it is now made clear that he either told a
falsehood or hjwl been willfully deceived by Mr. Thomas, or others con-
nected with the transaction.
Earl Russell directed Her Majesty's minister at Turin to inquire as to
the fact of this proceeding on the part of the Italian government, and on
the 1st of March he received an answer that Bar9n Ricasoli had no
knowledge whatever of any such ship.
It is admitted that at the time now in question Her Majesty's govern-
ment had no reason to suspect any of these statements to be fsilse, ex-
cepting the last. Subsequently, on the 25th of March, the final inform-
ation came, completely establishing the fact in that case. But even the
earlier information would have been likely, as it would soem, at lejist to
shake confidence in the veracity of the party making the statement.
And here I trust I may be permitted a general remark, possibly rather
trite, as to the moral effect of falsehood upon the general credit of men.
lu the private relations established between persons if any individual
in a matter of importance be one detected in a deliberate falsehood the
consequence is a habitual distrust of him by his associates for the future
in any transaction whatever. So I doubt not if my respected colleague,
who has done so much honor to the bench over which he has long pre-
sided, should discover, in the examination of any important witness in
a case, the fact that he had deliberately perjured himself, he would at
once feel it his duty in charging the jury to set his evidence aside as
generally undeserving of confidence.
Now, upon a calm review of the voluminous transactions recorded in
the numerous volumes which have been submitted to the judgment of
this tribunal, I do not hesitate to say that it contains a record of the
most continuous, persistent, willful, and flagrant falsehood and perjury
carried on in the British possessions by individuals associated in the Amer-
ican insurgent cause and their British affiliations, from the date of the
building of the Oreto, at the beginning, to that of the return of the Shen-
lettre dn 21, traDsmise par les commissaireSf oil \\ d<5c1arait qu'il avait tout lieu do
croire que le vaisseau <5tait coDStruit pour le gonvernenient italien, il est maiutonaut
evident, ou qu'il a dit uue f2iuS9et<5, ou qu'il a 6t6 trompd par M. Thomas oa autreH
personnes en^agdes dans I'aifaire.
Le Comte RusaeU fit faire au rainiHtre de sa Majestd bntannique ^ Turin des d-marches
pour savoir du gonvernement italien ce quMl en 6tait, et le !«'' mars re^rut r<^pouse
qae le baron Ricasoli n'avait aucune connaissance d'un vaisseau semblable.
II est admis qu'ii Vdpoqne dont il est question, le gouvemement de sa Majestd
britanuiqne n'avait ancuno rnison do considdrer ces d(^cl<iratiun8 comniu fausHe.s, ex-
c*pte la derniere. Pins tard, le 25 miirs, les deruiers renaeignements <5tablireut coni-
pl^tement le fait dans ce cas. Mais niSuie les premiers renseigiieinents auraient d(l, ii ce
qn'il serable, dbranler la foi dans la vdracit<5 des parties dont venaient les declarations.
Et ici Ton me permettra nne reniarque gen45rale un pen U8(^o quant aux ettets moraux
de Fabsence de vdrju5it<^ sur le credit accord<5 aux gens. Dans les rapports de la vie
priv<?e, si Ton a une fois ddcouvert dans nne question de quelquo importance que
qnelqu'un, de propos d61ib<?r^, a viol6 la v^rit6, la consi^quence en est que Ton so
doHe do lui pour tonjours. C'est ainsi quo jo suis convaincu que si nion honor<^
coUt'gne, qui a tant illnstr^ le tribunal dont il a ^t<5 longtemps le pr6sident, decouvrait
dans Texamcn de quelque important t<^moin, dans nn proces, quMl s'est, le sachant et
Ic vonlant, parjnr6, il n'h<^siterait pas a considdrer comme do son devoir en demandant
au jury de mettre son t<5moignage de cot^ comme indigne do cr<^ance.
Et maintenant, apr^8 un examen calme et rdtt(^chi des volumineuses proc<?dures rap«
porteea dans les nombroux volumes qui out 6t^ soumis au jugemeut de ce tribunal, je
u'besite pas do dire qu'il contientUne relation desfaussetos et des parjures de pei-sonnes
A^'tocii^es a la cause des insurgt^s anidricains et de leurs affiliations sur territoire britan-
nique, depuis la construction de TOreto, au commencement, jus<|u*au retour du Sbeuaii-
152 ARBITRATION AT GENEVA.
andoab to Liverpool, at the close, that has yet been brought to liirht in
history.
The earliest evidences of the truth of this affirmation are found
thickly strewn among the transactions relating to this vessel. They
ai)pear most strikingly in the reports made by Mr. Dudley, the consul
of the United States at Liverpool, both to his own Government and to
Mr. Adams. His duty was, with such imperfect means as he had in his
possession, to exercise due diligence in exposing every trace of an at-
tempt to carry on ft'om that place hostile operations against his own
country; and, I must add, most faithfully and energetically does he
seem to me to have performed it. But just in the proportion to the
eflicacy of his exertions was the attention of those engaged in such en-
terprises directed to the means of baffling his aim. To this end it ap-
pears clear that among the parties to which he was driven to resort for
the purpose of gathering information were not a few of indifferent
character, and probably some employed by his opponents expressly to
put him on a false scent, llaving no power in his hands to extort un-
willing testimony, he was compelled to rely entirely on his own judg-
ment to pick out of the mixed mass before him that which might seem
to him most in harmony with the probabilities of the case. That he
should have been occasionally misled, and thus have made representa-
tions through Mr. Adams to Uer Majesty's government which were
proved on investigation not to be accurate, ouglit to be neither surpris-
ing nor matter of blame to him. In point of fact, he seems in the present
case to have supplied pretty much all the correct information which
Her Majesty's government actually received, and which, if they had fol-
lowed it up with corresponding diligence, would certainly have ended
in the detention of the vessel. And her detention at that critical mo-
ment in these enterprises would probably have had the effect of putting
a stop to them all, as well as to the necessity of an^'^ such tribunal as
the one now constituted here.
But this was not to be. The government, which had in its hands al.
cloab u Liverpool, li la fin, les plus con tin us, prdmVSditds et flagrauts que rbistoire ait
jniiiais conniis.
Le.s ])reiuieres demonstrations de cotte affirmation so tronvent nombrenses pamii les
procedures relatives a co vaisseau. Elles apparaisseut le plus clairemeni dans les rap-
l»ort8 de M. Dudley, consul des I5tats-Unis a Liverpool; rapports transniis h son
^ou vernenient aussi Ijien qiCh M. Adams. Sou devoir ^tait, avec les moyens imparfaits
qu'il avait en son pouvoir, de faire conuaitre avec la diligence nt^cessaire tout iudice de
tentcTtives faites pour diriger des op^Srations liostiles contre sa patrie; et je dois ajouter
quMl ine semble I'avoir accompli avec beaucoup de conscience et d'^nergie. Mais
justement en proportion de IVfficacite de ses eftbrts, I'attontion de cenx qui avaient
eiitrt^pris ces operations fut dirig(5e sur les moyens de les contrecarrer.
11 up])aralt clairenient que, dans ce but, parmi les persounes aupr^s desquelles 11 <?tait
oblige de cliercber des reseiguement*, il 8*eu trouvait de pen estimables, et qui etaient
jirobablement employi^es par ses adversaires pour le ddroiiter. N'ayant aucun pouvoir
])our arracber des reuseigneraents qu'on no voulait pas lui donner, il fut obligd de s'eu
remettre A. son propre jugement pour cboisir dans ce qui lui dtait rapport<^ ce qu'il y
avait de plus vraisemblable. Qu*il ait 6te quelquefois tromp6. et quMl ait, 2\ cause de
cela, fait an gouvernement de sa Majesty britannique, par I'entremise de M. Adams, des
representations qui, sur enquf^te, out 6t6 trouvdes uon-fonddes, ne pent 6tre 6tonnaut et
ne pent devenir nn snjet de bhlmo i\ son dgard. En fait 11 paralt bien, dans le cas
actuel, avoir fourni prestjue tons les rensoignements exacts (|ue le gouvernement de
sa Majesty britannique a vraimeut reyus; et qui, si on en avait tenu compte avec un
soin egal, auraient certainement amend la saisie du vaisseau. Cette saisie k ce moment
aurait probablement eu pour rdsultat do mettre un terme, non-seulement ilk cette entre-
prise, mais i\ toutes les autres, et nous aurait, par consequent, dvitd la constitution de
ce tribunal.
Mais il ne devait pas en dtre ainsi. Lo gouvernement, qui avait tous les moyens
OPINIONS OF MR. ADAMS. 153
the means of extorting unwilling testimony, through efficient and trust-
wortby agents, does not seem to have been, at this moment at least,
conscious of the existence of any obligation to originate investigations
at all. It may reasonably be doubted, from the evidence before us,
whether it believed in it if it was. On the 1st of March — that is, twenty
days before the escape of the Oreto — an inquiry made of the government
of Italy respecting one of the official statements received from Liver-
pool had been replied to in terms which, if not absolutely decisive as to
its falsehood, certainly tended to throw the greatest x)bssible doubt upon
its truth. In such an important transaction as the building of a gun-
boat, it would seem to be clear that a grave misstatement of its desti-
nation by responsible parties was not likely to be made carelessly, or
without giving rise to some possible suspicion of an adequate motive to
account for it. It does not jippear from anything contained in the
papers before us that the attention of the parties concerned was called
to this circumstance at all. But it does appear very clear that, both in
the letters of Mr. Adams and Mr. Dudley, under the eyes of Iler Majes-
ty's government, there was presented an adequate motive to explain it,
to wit, the w ish to elude the vigilance of Her Majesty's government and
her otficers in preventing the outfit from one of her ports of a vessel
sadly wanted by the insurgent Americans to carry on war on the ocean
ajjaiust their Government. All the external circumstances indicating
a state of peace everywhere else in the civilized world pointed to that
quarter alone as the probable one, not simply to explain the destination
of the vessel itself, but likewise the false representation which had been
made for the purpose of concealing it. Her Majesty's government does
not seem to have entered into any such process of reasoning.
On the 23d of February it has already been observed that Her Majes-
ty's commissioners of customs had addressed a letter to the treasury
board, making a report in regard to the condition and destination of
the vessel called the Oreto, At the close of that letter are the follow-
ing words:
We beg further to add that 8X)ecial directions have been given to the officers at Liv- '
d'obteiiir tons les renseignements d*eniploy6s honn^tes et digues de foi, ne semble pas
avoir eu conscience, h, cette ^poqnc, de I'existeuce d'une obligation do sa part de fuire
(les euquetes volontaires <le sou c6t6. Ou pent raisonnableuient douter, eu voyant les
Uocaiiieuts, qu'il crftt meine a ce devoir. Lo 1«' mars— c^est-sVdire, vingt-deux jours
avant le d45part de TOreto — uue enquete, faite aupres du gouvernenient italien au sujet
(It) Tune des ddclaratious offlcieUes re9ues de Liverpool, avait eu pour resultat une
repinme faite dans des ternies qui, s'ils n'etaieut pas absolumeut d^cisiii) quant h ['exacti-
tude de ces ddclarations, tendaietit du moius i\ jeter sur elies le plus grand doute. Dans
line atiaire aussi iinportante que la cnnstructiou d'une cauouniere, on pourrait croire
qn'uue fausse ddclaratiou faite quant ii sa destination par des personnes responsables
He devait pas etre faito par n(^gligence ot devait faire naitre uu soup^on qu'il y avait
ties raiscms suffisantes de la faire. II ue paralt pas, d'apr^s les documents que nous
avoDs sous les yeux, que Tatteutiou de ces personnes ait 6t6 appeltSe du tout sur ce fait,
niai8 ce qui est clair alors, c'est quo dans les lottres de M. Adams, aussi bieihque dans
tTlles de M. Dudley, lettres placees sous les youx des membres du gouvernemcnt de sa
Majest<3 britaunique, des raisons bien suffisantes de ce fait furent doundes — c'est-a-dire,
le de.sir d'cchapper a la vigilance du gouvornemeut do sa MnjestiS britannique ot do
ses employes pour empccher rarmemont dans un port anglais d'un vaisseau dont les
in.<»iirgos aniericaiuH avaient le plus grand besoin. pour faire sur nier la gu ;n'e h, leur
Gouverneuient. La paix qui rdgnait partout, ailleurs, devait dinger Tatiention sur ce
point seul et devait uon-seulement ouvrir les yeux, quant i\ la destination du vaisseau,
inais aussi expliquer la fausse ddclaratiou faite dans I'intentiou de cacher cette desti-
nation.
n a d<^j4 6t6 remarqu6 que, le 22 fdvrier, les commissaires des douancs de sa Majesty
britauuifiue avaient adressd t\ la trdsorerie un rapport sur Tdtat et la destination du
vaiHseau appeld TOreto. A la fin de ce rapport so trouve la phrase suivanto :
**Kous ajontous que des instructions sx>6ciales out 6t6 doundes ik Liverpool pour
154 ARBITRATION AT GENEVA.
erpool to watch the movements of the ressely and that we will not fail to report forthwith
any circamstances which may occur worthy of your lordship's cojruizance.
THO. F. FREMANTLE. •
GRENVILLE C. L. BERKELEY.
After a diligent search, I do not succeed in finding a trace of any
report of these gentlemen earlier than the 4th April. Probably they
did not regard the circumstances of her outdt and departure from the
port as worthy of their lordships' cognizance, unless the news were
absolutely demanded.
Yet, when Mr. Adams, on the 25th of March, addressed another re-
monstrance to Earl Bussell, it seems to have had the effect of prompt-
ing his lordship, on the 2Gth of March, to direct a note to be sent to the
secretary' of the treasury requesting the commissioners of customs " to
give directions that the'Oreto may be diligently watched."
This seems to have brought forth a letter from Mr. S. Price Edwards
to the following efiect. It is dated the 28th of March :
To the Commissionera of Customs :
The screw-vessel Oreto was registered at this port on the 3d instant, as per copy of
repHtry annexed. She cleared on the following day, the 4th, for Palermo and Jamaica
in ballast, as per inclosed victualin^-bill. She ssiiled on the 22d instant, the day upon
w^hich the American consnl's letter is dated, having; a crew of fifty-two men, all Brit-
ish, save some three or fonr, one of whom only was an American. She had nothing
whatever on board save the stores enumerated. She had neither j^unpowder nor even
a signal-gun, and no colors save Maryatt's Code of Signals and a British ensign. With
reference to the passengers brought by the Annie Chihl, it is clear that they were not
intended to form any portion of the crew of the Oreto, for they are still in Liverpool;
and as respects the dipping of the ensign, this, as far as I can ascertain, was a compli-
ment paid .to one of the Canard steamers and some other vessel, which saluted the
Annie Child on her arrivtil, the masters being parties known to one another.
What became of this letter it is difficult to explain. It seems clear
that Lord liussell could have known nothing of it on the 7th of April,
snrveiller lea mouvements de co vaissean et qne nous ne manquerons pas de vous rap-
porter imniddiatement toute circonstauce digno d'etre port45e i\ la connaissauce de votro
seigueurie.
(Sign<5) "THO. F. FREEMANTLE.
"GRENVILLE C. L. BERKELEY."
Ma1gr<S uno recherche tr^^-active, je ne r<Sussis pas iV trouver une seule trace de rap-
port fait par ces messieurs ant^rieurement an 4 avril. Probablement ils n'ont pas
considere {'cirmement et le depart do ce vaissean comme des circonstances digues d'etre
port<5es ii la connaissauce de leurs seigneuries, 'X moins quo les nouvelles ne leur fussent
demandees express.
Et cependant, lorsque M. Adams, le 25 m<ars, adressa une seconde representation an
Comte Russell, le r<^sultat en fut, h ce quMl scmble, que sa seigueurie envoya au
secrdtuire de la tr(^sorerie une note, orduunant aux commissaires des douaues "de
donner des instructions pour que I'Oreto fftt surveilld avec soin."
C'eci semble avoir }»rovoqn^ une lettre do M. IS. Price Edwards, dans les termes
Buivants. EUe est datee du 28 mars.
"Jux commissaires des douanes:
" Le vaissean }\ h^lice VOreto a 6t6 enregistrd dans co port le 3 conrant, d'apr^s copie
du registre ci-Joint. II s^icquitta le lendemain, 4, pour Palernie et la Jamaique en
lest, d'aprtis le m<^uioirc des vi vres, ri-inclus. II mit i la voile le 22 conrant, le jonr dont
la lettre du consul am^'ricain est datdo, ayant un <^quipage de trente-deux hommes, tons
anglais, h Tcxception de trois on qnatre, dont nn seul dtait amdricain. II n'avait Hen
h bord.si ce n'est les proviHious ^numerdes. II n'avait ni poudre ni meme un canon
de signanx, et point de couleurs, si ce n'est le systt^mo de signaux de Marryatt et nn
pavilion anglais. Quant aux passagers ameu<^s par TAnnie Childs, il est cluir quMls
n*etaient piis destinJ^s :\ former uno portion quelconque de I'^^quipage de TOreto, car ils
Hont encore li Liverpool; et quant au saint du )>avillon, c'dtait, autaut que je puis le
constater, tin compliment fait ii I'un des 'steamers Cunard' et h qnelquo autre
vaissean qui salua 'TAnuie Childs' b. sou arrivde, les capitaines se counaissant
mntuellement."
II est difficile d'expliquer ce qu'il advint de cette lettre. II semble clair qne Lonl
Russell ne pouvait rieu en savoir le 7 avril, car il paralt alors avoir donnd I'ordre &
OPINIONS OF MB ADAMS. 155
for he appears then tx) have directed Mr. Hammonil to write to the Sec-
retary of the Treasury " to cause his lordship to be informed whether
liny report has been received from the commissioners of customs respect-
ing the vessel the Oreto.^ This was the sixteenth day after that vessel
liad sailed, a fact which he appears at that time not to h^ve officially
known, though doubtless he had gathered it from the newspapers.
The report before alluded to was then produced, dated the 4tb, but not
received until the 8th. It then first gave tlie information that the vessel
had sailed on the 22d, having been registered in the uame of John
Henry Thomas, of Liverpool, as sole owner, and cleared for Palermo and
Jamaica in ballast.
The reports indicative of any observation whatever made in watching
the movements of the Oreto appear not to have been collected until the
latter part of August, and then only at the instance of Lord Bussell, for
another i)urpose.
One more report was made by the commissioners of customs on the
1st of May. The official declaration of the minister of stiite of the Italian
government to Earl liussell, denying all knowledge whatever of theOreto,
had been put into their bauds. This declaration had been sent to Mr.
Edwards, the collector of the port, who had been the first person to de-
clare his faith in the falsehood, and was now called to make further ob-
servations. He did not think fit to make any explanation of the reasons
of his belief nor of its source, but contented himself with a reference to
the registry of the vessel in the name of a native of Palermo, which he
probably knew to have been a fraud, because he went on to admit the
fact of its real destination, and to place his absence from action on the
ground that ^^epen in that case no act had been committed to justify his in-
terference." It does not seem to have occurred to him to ask himself, if
the dispatch of the steamer was a legitimate act, where was the need
of the falsehood about the Italian government, or the further falsehood
of the ownership of Mr. Thomas. Neither does it seem to have occurred
to Her Majesty's government to consider whether they had been cheated
by their own officers.
M. Hammond d'dcrire au secretaire de la tr^^sorerie, "que sa seignenrie soit inforrado
81 Ton a reyii qnelque rapport des comraissaires d<*8 doiinnes toiirliant le vaisseaii
rOreto." C'^tait le 8eiz«me jour apr^s que le vaisseau avait mis ii la voile, fait quMl
lue semble d cette 6qoque n^avoir pas counu officiellement, quoique sans doute il I'eftt
appris par les jouruaux. Le rapport auqncl il est fait allusion ci-dessus fut alors
prodait, dat<$ du 4, mais ncm reyu avant le S. II donna alors, pour la premiere fois,
rioformation quo le vaisseau avait mis i\ la voile le 22, qn'il avait 6t6 enregistrd an
uoin de John Henry Thomas, de Liverpool, comme seul propridtairo, et qu'il s'6tait
acquittd en lest pour Palerme et la Jamaique.
^ Les rapports indiquant les observations faitos en surveillant les monvements de
rOr«*to ue paraissent avoir 616 rasNenibMs que vers la fin du mois d'aoftt, et alors
senlement a la deniande du Comte Russt*ll, dans un autre but. '
Un rapport fut en outre dcrit par les commissaires des douanes le 1" mai. On avait
inisentre leurs mains la note oflicielle du ministre d*6tat du gouvernement italien an
Comte Russell, par laquelle il ddclarait n'avoir aucune connaissanec de TOreto. Cette
(l^clarattou avait 6t6 envoyde h. M. Edwards, le receveur du port, qui avait 6t6 le
premier a se declarer convaincu de la vdritd des fausses indications donndes, et qui fut
alors appeM !\ fai re de plus amples observations. H no crut pas devoir do!)ner des
explications sur les raisons de sa foi en ces indications, ni snr Vori;rine de cette foi,
niais se contenta de s'eu rdfdrer aux registres qui portaient ce vaisseau an noin d*un
habitant de Palerme, ce que probablement il savait dtre nne fraude, parce quMl alia
jiisqn'ii admettre le fait de sa vraie destination et a excuser son abstention en disant
que, "m^me dans ce oas, on n'avait eommis aucun acte pour justifier nne intervention
<le sa part." II ne paralt pas quMl lui soit venu ;\ re8i)rit de se demander ponrquoi,
fti le ddpart de la canonni^re dtait Idgal, il dtait besoin d*une faunse declaration au
Hnjet dn gouvernement italien, on du second mensongo au sujet de la propridtd du
vaisseau par M. Thomas.
156 ARBITRATION AT GENEVA.
A steamer, completely fitted iu all respects as a man-of-war, had suc-
ceeded iu escaping from Liverpool, and nothing was left to make her a
power on the ocean but the receipt of arms and ammunition. How that
proceeding was accomplished we shall see in the sequel. At present, I
desire to point out tbe extent to which the falsehood and fraud that had
been resorted to in the course of the transaction, to cover it from obser-
vation, betr.ay the consciousness of the parties concerned in it of the
danger they were incurring, of the indignation of Her Majesty's govern-
ment in case the^' were detected in preparing such a hostile enter-
l)rise in a British port. At least they appear to have had no idea that
such an attempt, if really understood, was not an act which would jus-
tify the interference of the government. Hence the studied efforts to
misrepresent the transaction from the beginning to the end. Hence
the labor to substitute a false British owner, and a false destiny for the
real one. Hence the studied representation of Palermo, in Sicily, as the
term of the voyage, even to the simple seamen decoyed by this means
into an unwilling service. In a word, the ali'air reeks with malignant
fraud from its inception to its close. The parties concerned appear to
liave had no conception how eas^' it was to paralyze the action of Her
Majesty's government, or they would at once have relieved themselves
of all the opprobrium that attended their proceedings. Doubtless they
would not have indulged in mendacity for the mere love of it. They
did not then conceive that the principle of action was not to initiate any
active measures of thorough investigation into the truth of their words
and the good faith of their acts, but to wait for the disclosure of the
necessary evidence by the agents of the United States, who could not
in the nature of things possess anything like their power of extorting
the truth from unwilling lips.
I have now reached the moment when it seems necessary to apply
myself to the question so much discussed in the arguments laid before
us by the respective parties to the litigation. What is the diligence
due Irom one nation to another in preventing the fitting-oiit of any ves-
sel which it has reasonable ground to believe intended to cruise against
Un vaissean arm6 sons tous les rapports comnie vaissean do guerre avait rdassi ^sortir
du port do Liverpool) ct il no liii niuiHiuait plus, pour 6tre nne puissance sur Foc^n,
que des arnies et des munitions. Nous verrous dans la suito comment on arriva & lui
en fouruir. Pour le moment je dtSsire faire remarquer conibien la fraude employde
pour caclier Tarmcment de co vaissean ddnote, chez ceux qui trempaient dans raffaire,
la conscience des dangers qu'ils conraiont, si lo gouvernement de sa Majesty
britunnique avait ddcouvert les prdparatifs de cette enterprise hostile dans tin port'
angluis. lis pnraissent an moius n'avoir en aucune idde qu'une telle enterprise n'etait
pas nn acte justiHant I'interveution du gouvernement. De Iti ces efforts rditdrds poor
prdacnter la question sons un autre jour que le vrai. Do h\ ce travail de substitucr nu
iaux propridtaire anglais et nne fansse destination, au proprietaire r6el et k la vraie
destination. Do li\ cette declaration de Palermo comme le but du voyage, declaration
faite memo aux simples matelots entrainds de cette mani^re dans un service qu'ils ne
voulaient point. En un mot, cette affaire est un tissu de fraudes du commencement u
la tin. Les porsonnes intdressdes ne serablent avoir eu aucune id6e do la facili.td avec
laquelle on pouvait paralyser Taction du gouvernement de sa Majestd britanniqne, oa
elles auraient assitAt ddsird de so ddlivrer de I'opprobre de toutes leurs machinations,
lis no comprenaiont pas alors que les principes d'action dtaieub do no point preudre
I'initiativo de mesures actives et completes pour reconnaltre la vdritd de leurs
alldgations et la bonne foi de leurs actes, mais d'attendre les r^vdlations des agents des
£tats-Unis, qui ne pouvaiont en aucune mani^ro possdder le pouvoir d'extorquer la
vdritd i\ des ^ens qui ne voulaient pas la faire connaltre.
Je suis maintenant arrivd au moment oti il me semble ndcessaire d'examiner la ques-
tion, objet de taut de discussions de la part des deux parties dans ce ddbat. Avec
quelle diligence une nation doit-elle agir pour empecher rarmement d'uu vaissean quo
1 on a des raisous suffisantcs de croire destind h combattro uue autre nation 7 Quoique
OPINIONS OF MR. ADAMS. 157
the other? Although my own judgment is distinctly formed upon it, I
feel that this is not the place in which I can, with the most propriety,
explain my reasons in full. It is enough for my purpose here to say
that, in my mind, the diligence manifested by all the requivSite authori-
ties of Great Britian in the case now before us does not appear to me
to he that contemplated by the language of the treaty, because it was
not in any sense a spontaneous movement. So far as the papers before
us are concerned, I cannot perceive that Her Mujesty's. government
acted in any case excepting after representations made by the agent of
the United States ; and even when they did act, they confined them-
selves exclusively to the allegations therein made, presuming that, if
they could report upon them satisfactorily to themselves, their obliga-
tions were fully performed. It must be obvious that such a method of
action furnishes every possible opportunity to the parties implicated,
if they be at all adroit, to escape conviction, by resort to equivocation,
if not absolute falsehood. I can form no definition of the word " dili-
gence'' which does not embrace direct original action, persevered in not
merely to verify acts of offence one by one, but to establish the general
fact of intent as obtained from continuous observation of the oi)erations
going on ; not merely to detect the motives for falsehood, but to pen-
etrate to the bottom of the truth. If there was a conspiracy of persons
at home engaged in a treasonable effort to overthrow the government,
would not due diligence comprehend in its meaning a close and con-
stant observation of each and every one of the persons reasonably sus-
pected of being engaged in it, and an immediate action to x>i*event
any movement in advance of its maturity I Especially, would not such
energy be called for in time of war, when the danger to the state from
external co-operation might become extreme ? Most of all, would it not
be natural to expect from every power in amity to furnish all the means'
it could command to render abortive every combination suspected to be
forming within its borders to render assistance to the maneuvers of
the malcontents at home f All these are parts of a complete whole,
the maintenance of order at home and of peace abroad.
nion avis k cet ^gard soit parfaitement forni^, je sens que ce n'est pas ici le lien oil je
pnisse avec le plus do couveDance exprimer mes raisous d'une uianicre complete. II me
snfiit de dire que, selon mot, la diligence exerc<^o par tontes les antorit^d iiit^Sressdes de
la Grand&-Bretange, dans le cms actuel, ue me paralt iinllement correspondr j au texte
da traits, parce qu'elle n'a nullement <^t^ spontan^e, comme elle deyait r^.tre. Je ue
vois pas, en effet, dans ancun des documents sous nos yeux, que le gouvernement de sa
Majesty britanuiqne ait agi, si ce n'est snr les representations des agents des £kats-
Unis, et Didme, lorsquMl agit, il s'en tient exclnsivement aux informations qui lui sont
donu^es par ces agents, et seuible supposer qne, sMl pent rapporter d'ane maui^re satis-
faisante poar Ini snr ces informations, ses obligations interuationales sont pleinement
rempliea. II est <Syident qn'une telle mani^re d'agir fonrnit aux personnes int^ress6es,
poor pen qo'elles aient nue certaine habilet^, tontes les facilit^a ponr 6viter d'<^tre d^-
coavertes, ao moyen d'dquivoqnes, sinon de mensonges. Je ne puis donner ancune d^fi-
nitiou da mot *' diligences '' qui ue siguitie pas seuleinent line premiere action directe
proloDgde dans le but de v^ritier des d^lits un ii nn, mais aussi dans le but d'<5cablir le
fait gdn^ral de Pintention, t-el qne ce fait ressort d'une observation continue des o|MSra-
tioos qui s'ex^ntent. Snpposons une conspiration destin^e d* renverser le gonverne-
meot de son pays, n'entendrait-on pas, par les dues diligences, une surveillance atten-
tive et coustante de chacnne et de tontes les personnes que IVn a des raisons de
Boup^onner, et une action immediate pour emp^cher le mouvement de se pronoucer et
de Be d^larerf C'est surtont eu temps de guerre qu'nue Anergic seniblable sei-ait ex:-
g<^e, alors qne le danger d'une cooperation 6traug^re est imminent. N'est-il pas natnrel
d*attendre, de tonte puissance avec laqnelle on est eu paix, qu'elle fera tous ses etforts
pour fatre avorter toute eutente notoiremeut form^e tur sou territoire pour porter
Becours aux insnrg6s f Tout ceci fait partie d'uu tout complet, le maititien de lu pulx
cbez soi et k I'^tranger.
158 ARBITRATION AT GENEVA.
That there did exist in Great Britain a combinsition of persons, com-
posed partly of Americans and partly of British subjects, having for
its object and intent the fitting out of vessels to carry on war with the
United States, to the end of overturning the Government, is made per-
fectly plain by the evidence placed before us by the two parties. That
Her Majesty's government considered it no part of her duty to origi-
nate any proceedings tending to prevention, at the timoof the outfit of
the Orelo, or to pass at all beyond the range of investigation especially
pointed out "by the agents of the American government to its attention,
appears to me certain. At a later stage of the difficulties this policy
appears to have been partially changed. The favorable efi'ects of it are
claimed as a merit in a portion of the papers before us, and I am ready,
at any and at all ])roper times, to testify to my sense of its efliciency and
value wherever it is shown. But alter close examination 1 fail to see
any traces of this policy in the i)resent instance.
It is, then, my opinion at this stage of the transactions that Iler
Majesty's government did fail to use due diligence to prevent the fitting-
out, within its jurisdiction, of the Oreto, which it luid reasonable ground
to believe intended to cruise against the United States.
I now proceed to the next step in the career of this vessel.
fiiissau. — On the 22d of March, 18G2, the Oreto escaped from Liver-
pool with an intent to carry on war against the United States. Her
Majesty's government had not been tempted to penetrate the deception
which had been deliberately i)racticed upon it.
On the 28th of April she arrived at Nassau, and was reported by the
governor as a registered British vessel and carrying the British fiag.
On the 30th Commander McKillop, of Her Majesty's ship Bulldog,
addressed a letter to the secretary of the admiralty to this effect:
A very suspicious steamer, the Oretro, evidently intended for a gnnboat, is now in
the upper aiicboraji^e under the British A&g; but as there are no less than three cargoes
of arms and ammunition united to run the bloekade, some of these gnus, &.C., wouM
turn her into a privateer in a few hours. Aleuts of the confederate government and
QuMl a exists dans la Grande-Bretagne une entente entro des Am^ricains et des sujots
britanniquL's ayant pour but d'armer des vaisseaux pour faire la guerre anx £t4its-Unis
pour renverserle Oouvemement, c'est une chose parfaitemeut prouv^e par les t^nioigua-
ges mis devant nos yeux par les deux parties. Que le gouvernement de sa Migest^
britaunique u^a pas cnnsid^rd de son devoir de prendre des mesures preventives an nii>-
ment de I'urmement de I'Oreto, ou de fuire pour son compte une enqu^te en dehors des
renseigneuieirt« 9p<^<'ia1ement fonrnis par les agents du Gouvernement am^ricaiu, cVst
encore une chose indiscu table.
A une epoque post^rienre cette politique semble avoir changd en partie ; on en reclame
les bons r^sultnts dans une partie dtm documents qui sont devant nous, et je suis pr^t
h t(^moigner en faveur de sa valenr et de son efBcacit^S. Mais apres uii^r exameu je ue
rduHsis pas h trouver traces de cette politique dans le cas actuel.
Mon opinion est, par consequent, que, dans cette p^riode de raffaire,le gouvernement
de sa Mnjeste britaunique n'a pas exerc^ la diligence n^cessaire pour emji^cher Tappa-
reillement de TOreto dans les limites de sa juridiction, lorsqu*il avait des raisons sulfi-
santes de croire que ce vaisseau etait destin^ contre les £tats-Unis.
Nassau, — Je \>ii>*iw niainteuant i\ la seconde p^riode de la carri6re de ce valssean.
Le 2*2 mars 1862, TOreto sortit de la rade de Liverpool avec I'intention de faire la
guerre aux £tats-lJnis. Le gouvernement de sa Mujeste n'avait pas 4t6 tent<S de p<Sno-
trer la fraude qui avait 6i6 commise de propos d^lili^re ii son ^ganl.
Le28avril, il arriva ii Naisssu et fut auuoncd par le gouvemeur comme vaisseau
anglais, portant le drapean anglais.
Le HO, le commandant, McKillop, du vaisseau de sa Migestd britaunique le Bulldog
exp^die an secretaire de raniiraute une lettre ^ cet elfet:
*' Un vaisseau tres«suspect, l'Oreto,evidemment coustruit pour ^trenne canonniere, se
trouve niainteuant ill Tancre, sous les couleurs britaiiniques ; mais, comme il u'y a pasi
nioins de trois cargaisons* d'armes et de munitions ici reuniespour forcer le blociin,
quelqut;s-uus de ces canons, etc., pourraient en fuire un corsaire en peu d'henres. Dea
OPINIONS OF MR. ADAMS. 159
officers of tbeir Davy are here on the spot, and I have no doubt that the Oreto is intended
for thi'ir service,
Sueb was the natural and just conclusion of a p^allant British ofBcer,
writing under no bias on one side or the other, but moved only by his
sense of justice and fair dealing. Let us now proceed to consider the
manner in which events contributed to verify his prediction to the
letter.
On the 9th ^of May, Mr. Whiting, the consul of the United States at
Nassau, addressed a note to the governor, calling his attention to the
fact of the almost concurrent arrival from the i)ort of Liverpool of the
gunboat Oreto, and of the tug Fanny Lewis, laden with gunpowder for
the insurgent Americans.
This Itftter was referred by the governor to the consideration of the
Httorney general, with an indorsement on it to the effect that he wished
the agents of the Oreto to be informed that, if they put arms on board
that vessel, he should then enforce the rules laid down in the Queen's
proclamation.
The receiver general enters his minute on Mr. Whiting's letter, to the
effect that the Fanny Lewis has an assorted cargo not to be landed,
lie is confident that no part of th^ cargo had then been transferred.
Bat on the 26th of the month his tone changes, and he is convinoed
that the consignees of the Oreto intend shipping large quantities of
arms and munitions as cargo.
Two daj'S days later Commander McKillop writes to the governor as
follows:
Several steamers having anchored at Cochrane's anchornf^e, I sent an officer yester-
day to visit them and muster their crews, and ascertain what they were and bow em-
ployed.
The officer reports that one steamer, the Oreto, is apparently fitting and preparing
for a vessel of war; nnder these circnmstances, I wonld snggest that she should come
into the harbor at Nassan, to prevent any misunderstanding as to her equipping in
this port, coutrary to the foreign-enlistment act, as a privateer or war- vessel.
agents dn gonvernement confddi^rd et des officiers de sa marine se trouveiit ici m^me, et
je ii^ai ancun donte que TOreto est destind h, leur service.^*
Telle ^tait la juste et naturelle conclusion d'un brave officier anglais, 6cri van t sans
^tre prevenu pour un parti on pour I'autre, mais n'dcoutant que sa conscience et sou
sentiment dVquit<5.
Esaniinons mainteuant comment les dv^nements se charg^rent de verifier k la lettre
ces pr^'dictions.
Le 9 mai, M. Whiting, consul des l^tats-Unis h Nassau, adressa nne note an gouver-
iieur pour anporter son attention snr le fait du Tariivi^e presque siuinltande de la ca-
iionuiere TOreto et dii remorqneur Fancy Lewis, tons deux veuant de Liverpool
charges de poudre pour les insnrg^s amdricains.
Cette lettre fut Sdumise par le gonverneur h Texamen du procnreur gdudral, avec
nite note ^crite an dos, oh il exprimait le d<^sir que les agents de TOreto fnsseut inform^s
qne sMls enibarqnaient des armes }\ bord de lenr vaisseau, il mettrait h exdcution les
I^ri'iicriptions duict^es dans la proclamation de la Reine.
L«* receveur geudral prend note de la lettre de M. Whiting, en ce sens, qne la Fanny
Lewis a une cargaison assortie qui ne doit pas ^tre d<^lmrqu<^e. 11 expriuie sa convic-
tion qu*aucnne partie de la cargaison n'a encore ^t6 d<^barqn6e.
Mais le ^26 il change de ton, et il est convaincu que les agents de TOreto ont Tinten-
tion d'embarquer comme cargaison de graudes qnantit<5i d^anncs et de munitions.
Deux Jours plus tard, le commandant, Mr. McKillop, <5crit an gonverneur ce qui
suit:
" Plusieurs vapeura <5tant h Tancre dans la rade de Cochrane, j*ai envoy^ hier nn
officier pour les visiter, rassembler lenrs Equipages, et reconnaltre ce qu'ils <^taient et
Itt mani^re dont on les eraploio. L'offlcier me rapporte que " Fun des vapeura, TOreto,
est, selon tonte apparence, arm6 pour etre un vaisseau de gnerre. Dans ces circon-
Mances, je sngg^rcrais qu'on le fit eutrer dans la rade de Nassau, atin d'dvitor tout
lualeuteudn relativenient a son armementdans ce port, comme vaisseau de guerre on
de course, coutrairement an- fureign^enlistmenl ac(.^
160 ARBITRATION AT GENEVA.
The governor referred the qnestion to the .attorney-general, who gave
it as his deliberhte opinion tliat an order for the removal of the Oreto
to a place where she was within reach of observation shonld not be
made, as snch order could not be legally enforce<l unless it was distinctly
shown tliat snch a violation of law had taken place in respect to her as
would justify her seizure.
Ilere also it is to be noted that the attorney-general, following the
example given in the mother country, considers it not in/eumbent upon
the government to initiate any measures whatever of a preventive
nature. In other words, not until a vessel should succeed in an under-
taking of an illegal nature, which would necessarily imply her escape
from the jurisdiction, would the proper time come for proceeding with
proof that she ought to have been detained.
It was not until I became familiar with all these transactions that I
fully comprehended the singular facility of adaptation of the law, as un-
derstood and practiced in Great Britain, to the delaj' and defeat of the
ends of justice.
It is due to the governor to say that he was not altogether satisfied
with the passive policy recommended by his attorney-general ; and he
jiroceeded to recommend to Commau<ler McKillop to take active meas-
ures of prevention in the event of his being convinced that the vessel
was about to be armed within that jurisdiction.
On the 8th of June. Commander McKillop, in a letter to the governor,
announces that he will seize the vessel should she attempt to take am-
munition on board.
On the very next day the consignees of the Oreto began to load the
Oreto with arms and ammunition. But Commander McKillop did not
execute his purpose. On that day he quitted his command.
But on the very next day his successor. Commander Hickley of Her
Majesty's ship Greyhound, visited the Oreto, and found the consignees
just as busy discharging the arms and ammunition taken in the day
before. In point of fact, they had received a private notice from the
governor and the commander that 4t would not do ; but it was not a
Le goavernenr renvoya 1a qncHtion an procureiir g:^n^ral. Celui-ci d^clara qne son
opinion, ap^^4 mdre reflexion, dtait qne 1 on ne devait point ordonner le d^placement
de rOreto ponr le condnire en un lieu oil il serai t miens aurveiU^S ; qn'un t<el orrlre ne
Herait point l<$gal, tant qu'on n'aurait pas pronv<$ clairement que la loi avait 6t6 violiSe
de mani^re & Jiistitier sa saisie.
RemurquotiH encore ici que le procureur f^n^ral, snivant Texamplo donn^ en
Anglcterre, ne cousidi^re pas qu'il soit du devoir du gonvernement de prendre aucuue
niesnre pr^^ventive. En d'antres termes, ce u'est que lorsqu'nn vaisseau aura r^nssi
dans nne entreprise ill^gale — c'est-^-dire, loi^uMl se sera sonstrait tk la juridictiou — que
Ton pourra prendre des niesures pour arriver & la prenve qu'on devait le d<5tenir.
Ce ne fnt qu'apr^s ni'ctre faniiliaris<$ avec toutes cea affaires, que j'ai compris la
siugnlii^re facility avec laqnelle on peut adapter la loi, telle qn'cUe est x)rAtiqu<^o dans
la Grande-Brotagnej au ddlai et enfin ii Taunnlation de la Justice.
C'est une justice h rendre an gouverueur que de recounaltre qn'il ne fnt pas com-
pldtement satisfait de la politique passive reconimandde par le procureur general, et il
enjoignit au Commodore McKiUop de prendre d^actives mesnres preventives, dans le
cas oU il serait convaincu qu'ou 6tsL\t sur le point d'armer le vaisseau dans cette
juridiction.
Le S juiti, le commandant, McKillop, dans une lettre adress^e an gouvernenr,
anuonce qn^l saisira le vaisseau, si Von ten1« d'embarqner des munitions.
Le Jour suivant, les ngent« de TOreto commencent & le charger d'armes et de mu-
nitions. Mais le commandant, McKiUop, ne met pas h execution sa menace ; il avait
qnitte ses fonctions le m^me Jour.
Le lendeniain, son successenr, le commandant, Hickley, dn vaisseau de sa magest^
britannique Greylionnd visita TOreto, et trouva les agents en train de d^cbarger le vais-
seau des armes et des munitions embarqu6es la veille. £n effet, ils avaient regu un avis
particulier du gouvemeur et du commandant, qu'il ne pouvalt en dtre ainsi, mais ce
OPINIONS OF MR. ADAMS. 161
menacing intimation as to absolute action. They were canning enough
to take the hint, and change the line of their operations.
They now declared their intention to clear the Oreto in ballast for Havana.
This assurance quieted the apprehensions of the British commander.
Bat finding that the vessel still remained, on the 15th of June he again
visited her, in company with eight of his officers. The crew had re-
fused to get the anchor up until they could be made certain as to where
the ship was going. The Oreto was a suspicious vessel. After close
observation, Captain Hickley and his eight officers all signed a report,
addressed^to the govemor, to the effect that she is in every respect
fitted as a man-of-war. She had left Liverpool fitted in all respecta as
they saw her. No addition or alteration had been made at Nassau.
This paper was submitted to the attorney-general for his opinion, and
he gave it to the effect that nothing contained in it would justify the
detention of the vessel.
Bat Commander Hickley saw the thing in a different light from the
attorney, and on the 15th addressed a new letter to the governor, re-
porting the result of his conversations with the portion of the crew that
had come to see him. He was now so convinced of the intent of the
parties controlling the Oreto, that he was strongly inclined to take the
responsibility of her seizure and removal to another station at which
was placed the commodore or commander-in-chief. And he actually put
one of his officers temporarily in charge.
On the 16th of June the governor wrote, in reply, deprecating all
action of the kind contemplated, and throwing the responsibility wholly
upon him, if he should take it.
On the same day the attorney-general gives an opinion that no case
has yet been made out for seizure. He does not appear to have thought
it his duty to initiate any measures to ascertain what was the evidence
upon which Commander Hickley was impelled to his convictions. It
was the passive policy, the example of which had been set at home.
The evidence must come to the government. It was not for the gov-
n^<ftait pas an avis inena^ant cVnne action de la part du froavernenient, et ils fnreut
i&n'z fins poar en tenir compte et pour cbanp^er leur ligne de condnite.
Ilfl d^lar^rent alors qn'ils avaient IMntention de s'acquitter pour TOrcto en lest pour
la llavaue. Cette declaration ra^sura ponr qnelqne temps le commandant hritaii-
nique. Mais le 13.jain, voyant TOreto toujours d I'ancre, il alia lo vlBiter, accompii<xn^
di.' huit officiers, L'dquipage avait refus^ de lever Tancre tant qn'on ne lui anrait pas
hit connaltre ladestinationda vainsean. UOreto^tait un vaissoan suHpect. Apr^ nno ini-
mitieuse inspection, Ic capitaine Hickley et ses huit officiern signent nn rapport adress^
an ^onveruenr, declarant que TOreto e.st, sous tons les rapports, arm<$ comiue nn vai8-
spuu de cuerre. II avait quitt^ Liverpool tel quUls le voyaient alors ; on ne lui avait
fait ni changeraent ni addition h Nassau.
Cc docnment fut sonmis au procurenr g^ndral, et il declare qa^l ne contonait rien de
capable ^ jastifier la detention dn vaisseau.
Mais le commandant Hickley ne voit pas les choses sous le mdme jour, et, le 15, il
adressc one nouvelle lettre an gonverneur pour lui faire connaltre le rdsultat <rune
coQversanoD avec une partie de r<5qaipage de POn^to, qui <Stait venu le trouvor. II est
si convainca de connaltre les v^ritables intentions des agents de TOreto, qn'il est tout
dispose 4 prendre sor Ini la responsabilite de le saisir, et de le conduire an mouillage
Oil M troavele commandant en chef. II va mdme jusqu'4 commettre temporairement
an de sea officiers h sa garde.
L« 16 juin, le gonverneur r^pond en bl&mant tonte mesnre de ce genre, et le rend re-
BpoDsable de ce qn'il {>onrrait faire $k cet ^gard.
Le m^me jonr le procnreur g^n^ral declare quMl n'y a encore ancnn motif de saisir le
vaisseau. II ne semble pas avoir cm qn'il 6U\\t de son devoir de prendre des mennres
ponr reconnaitre sur quoi le commandant Hickley fondait sa conviction. C'^tait ton-
jours cette politique passive dont on lui avait doiin^ Fexample en Angleterre ; la prenve
devait arriver an gouverneiHent, et ce n'^tait pas au gonvernement d, rechercher cotte
11 B
162 ARBITRATION AT GENEVA,
ernment to go to tbe evidence. Of course it natarally happened tbat
this worked entirely for the benefit of the malefaotors, and to the in-
jury of the party that ought to have been protected. On the same day,
Commander Hickley wrote a reply maintaining his conviction, but de-
clining to assume the responsibility of acting in the face of the attorney-
general's opinion. He therefore withdrew the officer whom he had placed
in charge of the ship.
But the governor is not satisfied with the action of either party, and
is afraid to commit himself entirely against the clear conviction of the
commander, so he decides in favor of a seizure of the vessel, with a view
to a submission of the question to the local court of vice-admiralty at
^Nassau.
This was on the 17th of Junel The information of the act of Captain
Hickley was transmitted to the government at London, and received
the approbation of Earl Eussell. Indeed, there is a degree of hearti-
ness in the terms he uses to express it, and in his anxiety to see the
officer properly secured from any hazard to himself by reason of his
course, that clearly shows the earnestness of his satisfaction. I hope I
may not be exceeding my just limits if I seize this occasion to do a sim-
ple €Hct of justice to that eminent statesman. Much as I may see cause
to differ with him in his limited construction of his own duty, or in the
views which appear in these papers to have been taken by him of the
policy proper to be pursued by Her Majesty's government, I am far from
drawing any inferences from them to the effect that he was actuated in
any way by motives of ill-will to the United States, or, indeed, by un-
worthy motives of any kind. If I were permitted to judge from a calm
comparison of the relative weight of his various opinions with his action
In different contingencies, I should be led rather to infer a balance
of good- will than of hostility to the United States.
Tlie law-officers of the Crown were likewise consulted, and they gave an
opinion favorable to the action of Governor Bayley, but strongly urging
that evidence of what occurred at Liverpool of building and fitting out
prenve. Cette mani^re d'ap;ir devait n^cessairement tonrner an profit des ooapablea et
au prejudice de cenx qui devaient Hre prot6g68,
Le Illume joar lo commandant Hickley r^poud qne sa conviction demeure entibro,
m(\\i qn'il n'entend pas assumer la respousabilitd d'agir contrairement h TopinioD da
procuronr gdu^ral. £n consequence il retire Fofficier qu'il avait commis k la garde du
vaisseau.
Le gouvernenr, peu satisfait des deux opinions oppos6es, on craignant de se compro-
mettre en se ddclaraot centre la conyiction absolne du commandant, se d<^cide h &ire
sainir le vaiaseau, et iik porter la question devant la cour de la vicc-amirautd a Nassau.
Ceci se passait le 17 juin. On fit connaltre au gouvernement d. Londres ce qii'avait
fait le capitaine Hickley, et le Comte Russell y donna son approbation. II y a en effet
nn ton de cordialitd dans les terms quMl emploie pour Texprimer, et dans son anxi<§te de
voir Tofiicier bien garanti contre tout basard h cause do sa conduite, qui montre ciaire-
meut le sdrieux de sa satisfaction. • J'esp^re ne pas d^passA* nies justes limites, ai je
Baisis cette occasion d'accoinplir nn simplo acte de justice envers cet homme d'etat
dmiucnt. Autant Je puis voir de motifs de diffdrer d'avec lui quant k sa maui^re cir-
couscrite d'envisager son propre devoir ou dans les vues qui, x)ar ces document-s, sem-
blent avoir 6t6 adoptdes par lui quant h la conduite 4 suivre par le gouvernement de
sa Majestd, autant je siiis loin d'eu tirer ancuue conclusion quMl ait 6t4 mHj en aucane
nlani^re, par des motifs do roauvaiso volontd envers les l^tats-Unis, ou m^me par des
motifs inuignes d'aucune espcce. S'il m-dtait permis de juger, en comparant avec calnie
la valeur relative de ses opinions diverses, ii sa conduite en diffdrentes conjonctnres, je
serais plut6t portd h couclure en favour de la bonne volontd que de TliostiUtd h Tdgard
des ]^tats-Uni8.
Les avocats de la couronne, dgalement consultds, donn^rent nne opinion favorable
anx uiesures prises par le ^ouverneur Bayley, mais recommand^rent fortement d'en-
voyer le rdcit de ce qui s'dtait passd a Liverpool, au sigetde la construction et de Tarme-
OPINIONS OF MK. ADAMS. 163
should be at once sent forward, in order to complete the proof of her
hostile destination to the United States.
And here I trust I may be permitted to express my sense of gratifica-
tion on reading the reports and observing the action of the two gallant
naval officers. Their clear good sense and rapid judgment had led them
straight forward to the penetration of the motives of the authors of the
wretched equivocations und falsehoods by which they were surrounded,
as well as to the adoption of the most effective measures to bring their
machinations to naught. Neither does this course appear to have been
in any way prompted by a mere spirit of good- will to the United States,
which were to be protected by their action. It seems to have sprung
from that natural impulse of a conscience void of offense, which per-
ceived an act of injustice and fraud to be in contemplation, and deter-
mined at once to resort to the best measures to prevent it.
Had such an energetic spirit animated the whole action of Her Majes-
ty's government at sdl times and in all conjunctures, there would have
been no question about the exercise of due diligence in this narrative.
The opinion of the law-officers in London was received by Earl Rus-
sell on the 12th of August Ten days before that date he had addressed
a letter to Mr. Stuart, the British secretary at Washington, requesting
him, in view of this proceeding, to dissuade the American Government
from proceeding in the measure then contemplated of issuing letters of
marque. He little thought of what had been laid up in store for him by
the learned judg^ of the court of Nassau.
On that very same day he had pronounced his judgment that there
was no sufficient evidence to prove any act committed at Nassau to
jnstify the seizure. But, considering the very suspicious nature of the
circumstances, he should release his own government from the payment
of costs.
It is the general rule of courtesy between nations to recognize the
action of their respective courts without seeking to analyze the princi-
ples upon which the decisions are made. And it is a wise rule, as con-
dncive to the general maintenance of law and order in the performance
ment da vaissean, afin de compl6ter la prenve de la destination hostile de VOreto tl
]'6gard des ^tats-Unis. £t ici j'esp^re qu'il me sera permis d'exprimer mon sentiment
de inatisfaction en lisant ces m6moires, et en romarquant la conduitede ces deux braves
ofiQciers de marine; Icur bon sens lucide et leur jngement rapide les condiiisirent di-
rectement 2^ p^n6trer les moti& des aateurs des mis^rables ^qnivoqnos et des meusonges
dout ils dtaient envelopp6s, anssi bien qu'ii adopter les mesurcs les plus cfficaces pour
mettre si ndaut leurs machinations. Cotte condnite ne semble pas non plus avoir 6t€
proruqude en aucnne mani^ro par un simple esprit de bon vouloir h l'<$gard des ifitats-
I'nis, qui devaieut 6tre i)rot^g6s par leurs mesures. EUe semble avoir jailli do I'im-
pa)»ion natnrelle d'une conscience nette de toute faute, qui voit se pr<5parer un Ado
d'iojudtice et de fraude, et qui se determine en mdme temps ii prendre les mesures les
plu8 d^isives pour Fempficher.
Si le mdme esprit dncrgique avait animd toute la condnite du gouvemement de sa
Majeat<5, toujours et dans toutes les coDJonctares, il n'eilit pas 6t6 question de la pratique
des "dues diligences" dans ce m<5moire.
Ci'tte opinion fat re^ue par le Comte Russell le 12 aofit ; six jours anparavant il avait
adreas<S une lettre h M. Stuart, secr^Staire de la legation h, Washington, pour Ini demander,
en coDsid<^ration de cette decision, de dissuader le Gouvemement am^ricain do mettre d»
ex<F('ation la mesure dont il 6tait question alors^ de ddlivrer des lettres de marques. II
pr^voyait pen ce que lui r^^servait le tr^s-dminent juge de la cour de Nassau. Le m6me
joar, ce juge avait pronoucd son jngement; il ddclarait quMl n'y avait pas de preuves
saffisantes qn'il eiit 6t6 comrais h Nassau un acte justifiant la saisie. Mais cousiddrant
la nature auspecte des circonstances, il lilx^rait son gouvemement du paiement des frais..
Cent une r^gle g*5n<^rale de courtoisie entre les nations de reconnaltre les agissements
de leurs conrs do justice respectives sans chercher h analyser les principes sur lesquels
ae basent lenrs ddcisions. C^est \h une r^gle sage, auasi ntile pour le respect de la lol
qae poor le maintien des droits r<Sciproques de protdger les int6r6ts de Fane et de FautFe.
164 ARBITRATION AT GENEVA.
of their reciprocal duties of protection to individaal interests. But I
am not alto^^ether sure whether this rale should be held to extend so far
as to bind the members of this tribunal to absolute silence in this and
similar instances that come before us. Whilst most anxious on all oc-
casions to preserve the decorum appropriate to a station of such emi-
nence, I am at the same time oppressed by the conviction that in no
portion of the history of this proceeding is the responsibility of Her
Majesty's government for the subsequent career of this vessel more
deeply iniplicated than by the action of this vice-admiralty judge, in
letting this vessel go upon the reasoning which he presents in his justi-
fication. It would be easy for me, if it were necessary, to go into an
analysis of the various points in which he appears to have ruled erro-
neously both in regard to the law and to the evidence. It is made cer-
tain by the pai)ers that, in the former, he was not sustained by the law-
officers of the Crown at home. And as to the latter, I cannot but assume
the presence of some strong external bias which should have induced
him to give credit to certain persons on the mere score of personal
character, where testimony proves them so clearly, in my eyes, to have
been arrant cheats, and to discredit the seamen, chiefly on account of
their low condition, who are as clearly manifested to have told the sub-
stantial truth. My mode of explanation of this flagrant perversion of
the law is, that the judge partook so largely of the general sympathy
admitted by the governor to have held sway over the entire population
of the island, as to render him absolutely incapable, i||i this case, of a
perception of justice. It is not probably without a strong conviction of
4;his truth that the plain sense and clear appreciation of facts prompted
•Commander Hickley to advise the removal of the vessel entirely out of
this jurisdiction. For the honor of Great Britain, which must^be held
xesponsible through its agents for this flagrant wrong done to the ity ured
party, it had l)een perhaps well if the desire of the gallant officer had
vbeen complied with.
Many strictures have likewise been made upon theaotion*of the attor-
•nej-general, Mr. Anderson, throughout these proceedings, of so harsh a
Mais Je ne snis pas sflr si cette rhfrXe doit s'appliqner si Figoarensement, jnsqn'ik obltger
les Qiembro8 cle ce tribunal k iin Hilence abHolu^ dans ce cas et dans d'antrea semblabled
qui nous sont sonnns. Qnoique t^^8-dd8ireux en toute occasion de respecter 1e d^omm
d(l h nne position si dminente, je snis press^^ par la conviction que nulle part dans le
cours de cette affaire, la responsabilitd du gouvernemeut britanuiqne an sujet de ce
bdtiment u'est devenne anssi grande que par snite de ce jn^emeut de la vice-am tniotd,
et des argument-8 pr^sentds pour sa justification. II rao serait facile, s'il ^tait n^cessaire,
d'analyser les diffdrents points oU i1 s'est tronipd, soit sous le rapport de la loi, sott dans
le rapiK>rt dn droit, soit sous le rapport de la prenve. Les documents pronvent snra-
iboBdamment que, quant an premier, il n'a pas 6t6 appuy^ par los avocats de la coa-
ronue en Angieterre. Quant k la seconde, je ne puis ^ue croire k Texistence d'ane
grande partiality qui Ta conduit k donner cr^ance an t^Smoignage de certaines personnea,
"tielle. J^explique cette flagrante injustice par le fait que le jiige partioipait en une
•grande mesure k la sympatbie g^ndrale ^pronv6e par la population pea nombreuae de
rile, sympatbie admise dn reste par le gonvemenr, et qui le rendait incapable d'an jage-
oient imiiartial. II est probable que ce fnt parce qu'il ^tait convaincu de ce fait que
le commandant Hickley conseilla de conduire le vaissean hors de cette juridiction. Pour
I'bouneur de la Qrande-Bretagne, qui doit dtre tenne responsable des actions de ses
agents pour ce dommage Evident caus^ k la partie Ms^e, il etit peut-dtre 6t6 bien que
Ton se ftlt rendu an d^sir de ce brave ofticier.
Bien des critiques ont ^t^ 6galement faites de la conduite de ratt/orney-general, M.
Andei'sou, dans le coura de cette procedure, d^une nature si grave qu'il a 6^ ongag6 k
OPINIONS OF ME. ADAMS. 165'
natare as to have called from bim a formal paper in his justification,
which ba« been placed among the documents before us.
After a careful examination of tbe question, I am led to the belief
that it is possible to arrive at a clear comprehension of the motives
which actuated him, without the necessity of imputing any purpose
deeply affecting his integrity.
It appears that if, on the one hand, he was slow in his disposition to
reach any effective action to defeat the enterprise .of the Oreto in 1862,
on the other, he appears in proportion quite as swift in the process of
seizing the vessel known as the Alexandra, and subsequently tbe Mary,
and pressing for her condemnation, when she made her appearance at
Xassau in the winter of 1864, under much less dubious circumstances.
The reason is plain. Mr. Anderson virtually admits in his statement
that, in the earlier stages of the struggle in America, he considered the
fate of the United States as settled, and he did not regret it. But, in the
last months of the war, not a shadow of doubt could have remained in
his mind as to its permanence. He then cheerfully accepted a retainer
on their side. Tbe transition from one state of feeling to the other can
be no cause of surprise to any one observant of the relations of tbe
small population of Nassau to the United States. Neither is it difficult
to perceive among the documents the traces of a similar revolution of
sentiment and action going on simultaneously in other portions of Her
Majesty's dominions far removed from that relatively insignificant island.
Be this as it may, the effect of the decision of the admiralty court in
1862 was not only to liberate the shijp, but to put an end to all serious
attempts to prevent the full accomplishment of the nefarious purpose of
her owners. On or about the 7th of August, the Oreto sailed from Nas-
sau. On the 9th of the same month the schooner Prince Alfred also left
the place. They met at a spot agreed upon, about sixty miles distant,
called Green Cay; and there the Oreto received her armament and
ammunition, as well as her true officers and crew. The commander was
relieved from the terror of a new arrest which he had felt in the event
^rire poar sa Jastifioation un mdmoiie formel qni a ^t^ plao6 panni lea docaments ex-
po8^ devaDt nous.
Apr^ an examen sonipuleax de la qaestion, je suis amen^ & croire qu'il est possible
d^aniyer h one perception claire des motifs qui le dirigeaienti sans qn'il soit n6ceasaire
de Ini imputer aacun desaein affeotant son int^grit^ au fond.
n semble que, si d'on c6t^ il a 6t6 lent dans sa disposition h adopter ancnne mesnre
efficace pour empdcher Tentreprise de TOreto en 1862, de Tautre, il paralt en proportion
waai avide & ponrsaiTre le vaisseau nomm^ T Alexandra, et pins tard la Mary, et k
presser sa condamnation, lorsqu'il fit son apparition k Nassau, rhiver de 1864, dans des
eiroonstanees beancoap moins donteitses.
La raison est ^vidente. If. Anderson admet virtnellement dans son mdmoire qne,
dsoa les premieres phases da couflit en Am<$riqae, il oonsld^ralt le sort des £tats-Uni8
comme termini, et il ne le regrettait pas. Mais, dans les derniers mois de la gnerre, il
no ponvait pas rester dans son esprit Fombre d'un donte sar lenr permanence. II agit
9l(jn volontiers poor eux. La transition de Tune de ces fa^ons de sentir ^ Faatre ne
peat 6tre nne cause de surprise pour auoun observateur des relations de la petite popu-
lation de Nassau avec les Etats-Unis. II n'est pas non pins difficile de ddcouvrir parmi
ces documents les traces d*nne r6voiation semblable, h propos de la maui^re de sentir et
d'agir,Bimaltan^ment|dan8 bien d'antres parties des ^tats de sa M^jestd, trbs-eloign6es
de cette Ue relativement insignifiante.
Qaoi qu'il en soit, la consequence dn jugement de la cour en 1863 fnt, non<senlement
de iib^rer le biktiment, mais encore de mettre un terme k tonte tentative s^rieuse
poor emp^her Taccomplissement des projets criminels de ses propri^taires. Vers le 7
aoQt, rOreto quitta Nassau. Le 9 du mdme mois, le schooner Prince Alfred qnitta
aoaai oe port. lis se rencontr^rent ^ un endroit convenu, h une distance de 60 milles,
ftppeie Green Cay, et Uk, I'Oreto re$nt ses armes et ses munitions, aussi bien que ses
vrais officiexa et son ^vuipagie. Le commandant n'avait plus ^ craindre une uouvelle
166 ABBITRATION AT GENEVA.
of his continnauce at Nassaa for another day. There waa no cause for
this apprehension. His victory was complete. On the morning of the
11th August, in a place called Blossom Channel, believed to be within
the British jurisdiction, the log-book found in his vessel shows the trans-
action to have been completed. The authority of Her Majesty's govern-
ernment had been successfully defied, and the decision of her admirsklty
court proved a mockery and a show.
Hence it appears to me that Great Britain had clearly failed in enforc-
ing the second rule prescribed in the treaty of Washington, as well as
the first : and if these two rules were not enforced as they should have
been, a lailure in regard to the third appears to result as a matter of
course.
The next step in the career of the Florida, material to the present dis-
cussion, is the fact of her entry into Mobile, a port held by the insur-
gents, although at the time blockaded by the vessels of the United
States. Here she remained for more than four months. On the 15th
of January, 1863, she again succeeded in running the blockade outward,
and on the 25th her captain had the cool insolence to go at once to the
very place of the island of Nassau from which he had just escaped under
terrors which belong only to a malefactor. It is proper to add that in
the interval he had shipped an additional motley force of fifty -four men
at Mobile.
The question here naturally arises whether by this process the vessel
had so far changed her previous character as to be divested of any t3Tu;e
of her British origin and fraudulent equipment, and entitled to claim a
new departure as a legitimate offspring of a recognized belligerent power.
This question, ax)pertaining exclusively to the case of this vessel amoog
all those submitted to our consideration, and touching the release of
Her Britannic Majesty's government from any further responsibility for
the taint of her origin, appears to me one of the most interesting and
difficult of all that we are called to decide. But in order to complete
the review of the career of the vessel,* so far as it relates to the action of
arrestatioD, crainte qu'il aarait ^proov^e h Nassau, bMI y 6ta\t rost^ nn jonr de plos.
II n'avait pourtant ancuiie raison de craindre; sa Tictoire ^tait complMe. Le 17 aottt,
an matin, dans an endroit nomm6 Blossom Channel, dans les limites de la joridiction
britanni(ine, le livre du log l'att«8te, la transaction fut achev^. l^autorild da
gonverucment de sa Majesty avait 6i6 brav^e aveo saccto, et la decision de la ooor de
Tamirautd se montra com me nne derision et ane moqnerie. II me semble ressortir de
}ii que la Grande-Bretagne avait dchou^ k faire respecter la seconde r^^le dn traits de
Washington aussi bien qne la premiere. £t ai ces deux regies dtaient viol^es, la
troisi^me devait Ffttre n^cesoairement.
Le passnivant dans la calTi^re du Florida, relatif 2k la discussion pr6sente, est le &it de
son entree ilk Mobile, port occnp6 par les iusurg^, quoique, & cette <Spoqne, bloqu^ par
les vaisseaux des ^tats-Uuis. II y resta plus de quatre mois. Le 15 jauTier 1863, il
rdussit de nouveau ^ forcer le blocus, et le capitaine, le 25 du m^me mois, eat
I'inHolence de se rendre de suite an m^me endroit de Tile de Nassau, d'oti il avait
<^chapp^ sous les terreurs qui n'appartienneut qxx'h un malfaiteur. II convieot
d*iijouter que dans Fintervalle il avait enrdl^ cinquante-quatre hommes de plosde
toute esp^ce, h Mobile.
Ici s'c^l^ve naturellement la question de savoir si par ce proc4$d^ le vaisseau avait
assez chang6 son caract^re primitif pour 6tre d^pouill6 de toute trace de son origins
britannique et de son ^quipement frauduleux, et pour ^tre autoris^ ji pr6t«ndre partir
de nouveau comme un produit legitime d'une puissance bellig^rante reconnue. Cette
question, appartenant exclusivement an cas de ce vaisseau, eutre toutes cellea qni
Hout soumises h, notre examen, et embrassant la ddcharge du gouvemeroent de sa
Majest<S britannique de toute regponsabilit^ ultdrieure au si\jet de la tache de son
origine, me semble une des plus int^ressantes et des plus difficiles de toutes ceUes que
nous sommes appel6s h decider. Mais afin de completer la revue de la carri^re enti^re
de ce vaisscaUi en tant qu'elle se rapporte 4 la couduite de la Graude-Bretagne, quant ^
OPINIONS OF MB- ADAMS. 167
Great Britain npon the occasion of her visits at any ports within that
jurisdiction, I deem it expedient to postpone the observations I propose
to make upon it until the end.
Whatever may be the doubts elsewhere expressed about this point,
none whatever were admitted at Nassau, the very spot where the fla-
grant fraud had been most successfully perpetrated and Her Majesty's
dignity insulted and defied. She was immediately recognized as a
legitimate belligerent, the only objection made to her presence being a
violation of a minor regulation of the port, which required a previous
application for permission before coming to anchor. For this minor
offense the captain could afford to apologize, when the vastly greater
one had been so readily condoned. The object he now had in view was
tlie procuring a good supply of coals for the prosecution of his cruise.
Permission seems to have been given without stint. Some question has
been raised about the precise quantity ; but if there was no limit pre-
scribed by the authorities, it may reasonably be inferred, from the gen-
eral sympathy strongly manifested by the population, that all would be
supplied the captain would be ready to take. So, likewise, with pro-
visions. A person on board of the Florida at the time seems to have
recorded his impression that enough had been supplied to last several
months. This is doubtless exaggerated. So with the testimony of two
persons, taken several years afterward, of their recollection of the facts,
\fh\eh would naturally be subject to serious reduction. Yet, after mak-
ing every i>ossible allowance for these circumstances, it appears reason-
able to me to conclude that Captain Maffit succeeded in getting all that
he desired to put him in a conditfon to commence, and continue for
some time, a predatory cruise. It is also alleged that the captain
shipped here eleven men, which is not unlikely to be true also, if he
needed them.
Captain Mafflt, thus completely fitted out from Nassau as a basis, pro-
ceeded on his cruise, which lasted for about a month, and in which he
alleges that he experienced ver^ rough weather. This is the reason
sea TiBites k certains ports sous cette jnridiction, je crois pins convonable de remettre
jiuqu'^ la fin les observations que je me propose de faire l^-deasus.
Quels qae pnssent 6tre les doutes entretenus ailleurs k ce si^et, on n'en admettait
aocQn k Kassan, I'endroit oh la fraud e flaj^rante ay ait ^t^ commise avec le plus ji^rand
sQcc^y et oh la dignity de Sa Mfigest^ avait ^t^ le plus outrag^e. U fut immediatemeut
reconna comme belligdrant Idgitime, la seule objection faite k sa presence ayant 6t6
qa'il avait viol^ un petit r^glement du port, qui exiceait qu'on demand4t d'abord la
permission avant de mettre k Tancre. Pour cette i^g^re faute, le capitaine Mafiitt
poQTait bien faire une apoloffie quand oelle qui 6tait oeaucoup plus grande avatt 6t6
pardonn6e si promptement. Maintenant le but que le capitaine Maffitt se proposait
dans cette yisite 6tait de se pourvoir d'une bonne provision de oharbon pour la
ponnuite de son entreprise. La permission semble avoir 6i6 donn^e sans r6serve.
On a agit6 la question de la qui^ntit^ precise, mais sHl n'y avait pas de limite prescrite
par les antorit^, on pent raisonnablement conclure de la sympathie fi;6n<Srale,
hautement manifesto par la population, que tout ce que le capitaine edt 6t6 pr^t i\
prendre lui eftt 6t6 donn^. De mdme pour les provisions. Une personne k bord du
Florida, k cette dpoque, semble avoir mis par ^rit son impression qu^on en avait
aecord^ assez pour plnsieurs mois. Ceci est sans doute exag^rd. De mSme quant au
t^moignage de deux personnes, emprunt^ plnsieurs anuses aprta, k leur recncil des
^AitSy qui devrait 6tre soumis k une reduction s^rieuse. Mais apr^s avoir fait toutes
les concessions possibles h V6gBT6. de ces circonstances, 11 me semble raisonnable de
cooclnre que le capitaine Maffitt r^ussit k obtenir tout ce qu41 ddsirait pour se niettre
eii ^tat de commencer et de continuer pendant quelqne temps une course de pillage.
On all^gue anssi que le capitaine y enr61a onze hommes ; fait dont la v^tit6 u'est pas
improbable, s'il en avait besoin. Le capitaine Maffitt, ainsi compl6temeut ponrvn ii
Xassaa, place prise pour sa base, commen^a sa course, qui dura environ un mois,
pendant lequel U dit avoir ^prouv6 de tr^rudes temps. Au moins, c'est la raison
168 ABBITEATION AT GENEVA.
assigned for his visit to Barbadoes, where he applied for more coal and
some himber. He suppressed the fact of his late supply, and reported
himself a« last from Mobile. He succeeded in obtaining 90 tons, and
thns prosecuted his predatory voyage on his renewed stock.
Much damage as these permissions unquestionably entailed upon the
United States commerce, it is proper to add that they had not been
given so much from any willful disposition on the part of the officers of
Her Majesty's government, but rather from their indifference to all
measures of early prevention. So soon as information of these events
had been received at the colonial office in Loudon, this liberality was
checked, and orders were issued to be more cautious in the future.
After a visit of four days to Pernambuco, the next British port
entered by Captain Maffit was Bermuda, on the 15th of July. His ap-
plication for government coal was here, for the first time, refused. He
succeeded, however, in obtaining plenty from other sources, and in
transgressing the limit prescribed for his stay for repairs without cen-
sure, which enabled him to cross the ocean and reach Breat, in France,
on the 23d of August.
it should be noted that this long cruise, from the 25th of January to
the 23d of August, of nearly seven months, was made with supplies of
coal received exclusively from British sources.
It seems to be unnecessary to enter into further particulars of her
career after she left Brest. She seems to have touched at some British
ports in the West Indies and obtained assistance, and she finally put into
Bahia, which proved to be the termination of her record, in October.
The length of her term on the ocean had been about eighteen mouths
— long enough to perpetrate much too large an amount of mischief.
It now remains to me only to recur to the question, already proposed
in the course of this opinion, regarding any change of original chamcter
that may be considered to have taken place in this vessel by the fact of
donnde par lai poar la visite qn'il fit le 24 f^vrier k la Barbade, poar prendre encore
plua de cbarbon et du 'bois pour les r^paratioDB. II supprima le fait de eon dernier
subside, et il d^lara qnUl venait en dernier lien de Mobile. II r6u66it ^ obteuir
quatre-vingt-dix tonnes, et continua ainsi son voyage de pillage.
Qnelque grand que soit le dommage cansd, sans ancun doute par ces permissionSi an
commerce des iStat-Unis, il convient d'ajonter qu'elles n'ont pas tant 6t6 doun^es avec
malveillauce de la part de Toilicier du gouvernement de sa Miyest^S qa'^ cause de
cette iudiff<^rence qui ne prdvoyait jamais la n^cessit^ de prendre des pr^cautiors
d'avance. Aussit6t que la nouvelle de ces dvdnements eut 6i6 re^ne k Tomce colonial
de Loudres, cette lib<5ralit6 fut r<$prinj^e et des ordres furent donn^ d'etre plus
circouspect h Tavenir.
Apr^s nne visite de quatre jours h Pemambonc, le premier i>ort anglais oti entra le
capitaine Mafflt fut Bermuda, le 15 juillet. Sa demande d'obt«nir dn cbarbon du
gouvernenent fut ici refus^e pour la premiere fois. II r^ussit cependant ii en obtenir
eu abondance d'ailleurs, et d. ddpasser sans censure les liniites prescrites k son s^jour
Sour reparations, ce qui lui donna les moyens de traverser I'oc^au et d'atteindre
rest, en France, le 23 aoAt.
II faut remarqner que cette longue course, dn 25 Janvier an 23 aottt, de pr^s de sept
mois, fut faito avec des subsides <£ cbarbon regus exclusivemeut ae sources britau-
niques.
II ue me semble pas n^cessaire d'entrer dans des d<Stails nlt^rienrs sur la carri^re de
ce vaissean apr^s son depart de Brest. II semble avoir toucb^ h quelquee ports
anglais, dans les Indes occidentales, et avoir obtenn des secours ; et enfin il entrn i^
Babia, ce qui mit fin h sou bistoire, en octobre. La dur6e de sa carri^re sur Toc^aa
avait 6t6 d^environ deux ans et demi. Sa course comme belligdrant avait dxir6 environ
dix-buit mois; assez longtemps pour commettre une somme de dommages beaucoup
trop grande.
II ue me reste plus qu'd. revenir k la question d^j^ propos^e dans le conrs de cet avis,
k y6ga,td du cbaugement de caract^re national, qu'on pourrait consid^rer comme ayaut
OPINIONS OF MR. ADAMS. 169
her having succeeded in reaching a port of the belligerent power to
which she claimed to belong.
I have endeavored to give to this point the most careful and diligent
study of which I am capable. The result is, that I cannot arrive at
any conclusion satisfactory to myself which even implies a necessity to
assent to the proposition that success sanctifies fratid. All law recognized
by the conscience of civilized nations has for its only solid basis a con-
viction that it is based upon clear principles of right. In some
languages the word used to express these ideas is identical. At the same
time, I am not unaware that, in the progress of international relations,
there may happen from time to time occasions when a necessity will
arise to recognize a simple fact without reference to its nature. But
this must happen under circumstances which imply neither participation
nor approval. It ought not to be permitted to happen when these cir-
cnmstances are clearly within control, and the motive to act should be
imperative as upholding the majesty of law.
In the case before us, it seems to me conclusively established by
evidence that, from the moment of inception to that of complete execu-
tion, the building, equipping, and dispatching of the vessel were equally
carried on by a resort to every species of falsehood and fraud, in order
to baffle and defeat the legitimate purpose of Her Majesty's government
to uphold the sanctity of her laws and make good her obligations to a
foreign nation with which she was at peace. Down to the moment of
arrival at Mobile, I fail to i>erceive any good reason for supposing that
the character the vessel took at the outset had not substantially adhered
to it to the tend.
It has always been to me a cause of profound regret that Her
Majesty's government had not seen fit to mark her sense of the indig-
nities heaped upon her by the flagrant violation of her laws in these
cases, at least by excluding the vessels from her ports. Thus she would
have rescued her own honor and escaped the evil consequences which
have ever since attended her opposite decision. Such a course had not
en lien dans ce vaissean par le fait de sa rdussite h atteindre nn port de la pnissance
belligdrante k laquelle il avait la pretention d'appartenir.
Je me sals efibrc6 de consacrer b, ce point I'^tude la pins soignense et la pins
attentive dont je sois capable. Le r6snltat en est que je ne puis arriver h aucune
conclnsion satisfaisante pour moi-m£me qui impliqnilt la n<5ee8sit<5 de donner nion
asseotiment ^ la maxime que le sneers sanctifie la frande. Toute loi reconnue par la
ccAscience des nations civilises a, pour base solide unique, la conviction qu'elle est
fondle 8urd€» principes moraux de droit. Dans quelques langues le mot employ^ pour
exprimer ces id^es est identique. En m^me temps je n'lgnore pas que, dans le progr^s
de tons les rapports intemationaux, il pent se pr^enter de temps en temps des
occasions oh nne n^cessit^ arrive de reconnaltre un simple fait sans 6gard h sa nature.
Mais il faut, pour cela, que celui-ci se pr^sente dans des circonstanccs qui n'impliquent
m participation ni approbation. On ne devrait pas permettre qu'il arrivdt, quand ces
circonstances sont dvidemment sons contr61e et que le motif d'agir serait imp^rieux,
comme appuyant la majestd de la loi. Dans le cas que nous avons devant nous, 11 me
Bemble incontestablement 6tabli par la preuve que, depuis le moment du commence-
ment jnsqu'^ celui de Pexdcution complete, la construction, F<?quipement et Texp^di-
tioQ du vaifiseau out ^t^ ^galement conduits an moyen de toute esp^ce de mensouges
et de fraudes combines pour d^jouer et pour annnler les desseins legitimes da
Konvemement de sa Majesty, de maintenir la sonverainet^ de ses lois et de remplir ses
obligations envers une nation ^trang^re avec laqueUe il *€tait en paix. Jusqu'aa
moment de Tarriv^e h Mobile, je ne puis trouver aucune bonne raison de supposer que
le caract^re pris par le vaisseau an commencement ne lui ait pas 6t6 attache essen-
tiellement jnsqa'& la fin.
J'ai tonjours regrettd profond6ment qne le gonyemement de sa Majesty n'edt pas
jng6 convenable de montrer son sentiment h T^ard des indignitds accumuldes sur lui
par la violation flagrante de ses lois, dans ces cas an moins, en excluant les vaisseaux
de 668 ports. II aurait ainsi sauv^ son honneur et 6chapp6 aux consequences f&cheuses
qui ont tocgonrs €16 attach^es h sa decision contralre. Une telle d-marche n'avait paa
170 AKBITEATION AT GENEVA,
been witbont its advocates among jnrists of eminence in tbe kingdom,
at least one of whom bad recorded bis opinion. A significant example
may be fonnd in tbe papers before us. Sucb a course could not have
failed to maintain itself in tbe end by tbe simple force of its itinate har-
mony with justice and with right.
To suppose that the moral stain attached to a transaction of this
character can be wiped out by the mere incident of visiting one place
or another, without any material alteration of the constituent body in-
spiring its action, seems to me to be attaching to an accident the virtae
which appertains solely to an exercise of the will. 1 cannot, therefore,
concede to this notion any shade of weight. The vessel called the
Florida, in my view, carried the same indelible stamp of disbonor from
its cradle to its grave ; and in this opinion I have been happy to dis-
cover that I am completely sustained by the authority of one of tbe
most eminent of the jurists of my own country who ever sat in tbe
bighest seat of her most elevated tribunal. I find it recorded in one of
the volumes submitted to our consideration by the agent of Her
Majesty's government, from which I pray for leave to introduce tbe fol-
lowing extract, as making an appropriate close :
''If this were to be admitted/' says Chief Jastice MarsbaU, ''the laws for the preeer-
yation of onr neutrality woald be completely eluded. Vessels completely fitted in our
ports for military expeditions need only sail to a belligerent port, and there, after oV
taininj; a commission, go through the ceremony of discharging and re-enlisting their
crew, to become perfectly legitimate cruisers, purified from every taint contn^ted at
the place where all their reiS force and capacity for annoyance was acquired. This
would, indeed, be fraudulent neutrality, disgraceful to our own Government and of
which no nation would be the dupe." *
For the reasons herein specified, I have come to the conclusion in tbe
case now presented of the Florida, that Great Britain, by reason of her
omission to use due diligence to prevent the fitting-out, arming, and
equipping within its jurisdiction, of that vessel, and further of her omis-
sion to forbid the crew of that vessel from making use of its ports or
manqu^ d^avocats parmi les juristes les plus distingn^ du rovaume, dont no an moins
a douu6 son avis. On pent en trouver un exemplo significatif dans les documents qui
Bout devant nous. Une telle conduite n'edt pas manqu6 de se soutenir h la longne par
la simple force de son harmonic inn^e avec la justice et le droit.
Supposer que la tache morale imprimde h une transaction de cette nature puisse
dtre eli':ic<5e par le simple incident d'nne visite h un lieu on 5. un autre, sans aucau
changement mat^^riel du corps constituant qui inspire sa conduite, me semble attacher
h un accident la vertu qui n'appartient qn'ti un exercice de la volenti. Je ue puis, par
consi^quent, accorder h cette id6e aucuno esp^ce de valeur. Le vaisseau nomm6 le
Florida, i\ nion point de vue, porta le mdrae cachet ind6I^bile de d^shonneur de son
berceau ju8qu's\ sa tombe. Kt j'ai 6t^ houreux de trouver que Jo snis enti^rement
appuy6 dans cette opinion par rantorit4S d'uu des jurist<es les plus ^minents de moa
paj^s qui ait jamais occup<S le si<5ge le plus haut de son tribunal le plus 61ev6. Je la
trouve rapport<Se dans un des volumes soumis & notre examen par Talent da
gouverneniont de sa Majesty, dont je vous prie de me permettre de pr&enter Textrait
suivant comnie faisant une fin bien appropriiSe h cet avis:
'^Si Pon admettait ceci, (dit le Chief Justice Marshall,) leslols pour le maintiende
notre neutralitiS seraient com}>16tement ^luddes. Des vaisseaux enti^rement ^quip^
dans nos ports pour des operations militaires n'ont qu*d<faire voile jusqu'ii un portbel-
lig^rant, et lii, aprt^s avoir obtenu une commission, h faire la c^r^monie de licencier et
de r<^enr61or leur <5quipage, pour devenir des croiseurs parfaitement Mgitimes, ]jurifi&
de toute tache contract<Se daus le lieu oil toute lour force et leur pouvoir de nuire ont
6t6 acquis. Ce serait en v<Srit<S une neutrality frauduleuse, d^shonorante pour notre
propre gonvcmement, et dont aucune nation ne serait la dupe.^
Pour les raisons sp^cifi^es ci-dessus, je suis arrive ii la conclusion, dans le cas main-
tenant prdseut^ du Florida, que le Grande-Bretagne — en omettant de faire usage des
" dues diligences " pour empdcher I'arraugeinent, Tarmement et r<$quipement, daus sa
Jurisdiction, de ce vaisseau ; et de plus, en omettaut de d6fendre h r6quipage de ce
vaisseau de se servir de ses ports ou de ses eaux comme base d'op<Srations centre les
OPINIONS OF ME, ADAMS. 171
waters as the base of operations against the United States, has failed
to falfill the duties set forth in each and every one of the three rales
prescribed to the arbitrators as their guide under the terms of the
treaty of Washington.
v.— THE ALABAMA.
On the 24th of June, 1863, Mr. Adams addressed a note to Earl Bus-
sell, reminding him of the representation he had made some u^wmum.
time before touching the equipment of the Oreto, alid allud-
ing to the Terification of his apprehension of its true destination.
In point of fact. Lord Bussell had had in his hands for a fortnight
a copy of a letter of Commander McKillop to the secretary .to the admi-
ralty, which has already been quoted in the memoir on the Florida, as
clearly indicating the character of that vessel and its destination.
Her Majesty's government had theu had no reason to doubt as to the
nature of the vigilance which had been promised on the part of her offi-
cers at Liverpool, or of the manner in which it had been deceived.
Mr. Adams then proceeded to call his lordship's attention to another
and more remarkable case of a vessel in process of construction at
Liverpool, in the yard of one of the most noted building firms of that
place, intended for the same purpose as designated in the case of the
Oreto, and controlled virtually by the same parties.
Mr. Adams at the same time transmitted to his lordship a letter from
Mr. Dudley, the consul of the United States at Liverpool, addressed to
himself, giving all the information touching the matter he had been
able to collect.
On the next day Mr. Hammond, on behalf of his lordship, addressed
one letter to the secretary to the treasury, requesting immediate inqui-
ries to be made respecting this vessel, &c., in the customary form.
At' the same time he addressed another to the law-officers of the
Crown, transmitting the note of Mr. Adams and the letter of Mr. Dud-
ley for their consideration, aud asking for such observations as they
might have to make on the subject.
£tata-Uni8 — n'a pas rempli, dans co cas, lea devoirs exposes dans les trois regies prescrites
ftoz arbitres comme guides d'apr^s les termes da traits de Washington.
l/ ALABAMA.
Le24 jnia 1862yM. Adams 'adressa une note an Comte Russell, Ini rappelaut la repre-
sentation qu'U avait faite qnelquo temps auparavant tonchant l'6qaipement de VOreto,
et faisant allusion ^ la verification de sou apprehension sur la vraie destination de
celui-ci.
En effet, Lord Russell avait en en mains, pendant une qninzaine de Jours, une copie de
la lettre du commandant, McKillop, au secretaire de ramiraute, qui a dejii ete citee
dans le memoire sur le Florida comme indiquant clairement le caract^re de ce vais-
seaa et sa destination.
Le gonvernement de sa Majeste n'avait done en aucnne raison pour donter de la
Bamre de la vigilance qui avait ete promise de la part de sea officiers h Liverpool, nl
de la mani^re dont il avait ete trompe.
M. Adams attira ensiiite Fattention de sa seiji^eurie sur un autre cas, plus remarqua-
ble, d^an vaissean en constructiou & Liverpool, dans le chantier d'un des plus fameuz
constructeurs de cette ville, destine au mdme but qne celni qui a ete iudique dans le
ca« de rOreto et contrdie effectivement par les m6mes parties.
M. Adams transmit en mdme temps ii sa seigneurie une lettre de M. Dudley, le consul
des Etats-Unis h Liverpool, adreasee h lui-m6me, donnaut tous les reuseignemeuts
tonchant cette affaire qu'il avait pu rasscmbler.
Le lendemain, M. Hammond, au nom de sa seigneurie, adressa une lettre au secre-
taire do la tre«orerie, dans la forme ordinaire, demandant qu'on fit immediatement une
enqn^te ^ regard de ce vaissean.
Kq mdmu temps 11 adressa une lettre aux avocata de la couronne, en transmettant
la note de M. Adams et la lettre de M. Dudley, pour qu'ellea fussent prises en conside-
nition, et en demandant lea observationa qu'ils pouvaient avoir & faire sur ce siyet.
172 AKBITRATION AT OENEYA.
It is presamed that this last measure was a precaation additional to
anything that had been done in the case of the Oreto.
Five days later a report wa« made by the law-officers, in reply to this
application, in substance to this effect:
If the representation made by Mr. Adams is in accordance with the facts, the boild-
ing and equipment of the steamer is a manifest violation of the foreign-enlistment
act, and steps ought to be taken to put that act in force, and to prevent the vessel fivm
going to sea.
This was a great step in advance of an^^thing that had taken place in
the former case. It fully recognized the duty of prevention, and strongly
recommended that proper steps be taken by the authorities at Liver-
pool to ascertain the truth, and if sufficient evidence could be obtained
to justify proceedings under the act, to take such proceedings as soon
as possible.
Nothing could be more satisfactory than this direction. If it had
been carried out in its spirit by the parties who had it in charge, there
is little reason to doubt that the policy pointed out would have been
effected.
But it appears more than doubtful whether this injunction produced
the smallest effect upon the parties concerned; for it could hardly
have reached its destination before the time at wnich the report of the
commissioners of the customs was made up. That report was clearly
made in answer to the earlier letter of Mr. Hammond of the 25th ; for
the reports of Mr. S. Price Edwards, the collector, and of E. Morgan,
surveyor at Liverpool, dated the 28th instant, inclosed therein, precede
by two days the opinion of the law-officers. No allusion appears to be
made to it in this reply. The substance of it is the admission of the
fact that the vessel is intended for a ship of war. But no evidence has
been produced of its destination sufficient to justify proceedings, and
unless the cbnsul, Mr. Dudley, should be able to submit such evidence
to the collector of the port, any attempt to seize the vessel would end
only in entailing upon the parties concerned very serious consequences.
On pent pr6snmerqne cettedemi^re mesure 6taXt nne precaution en plus de tout ce qui
avait ete fait dans le cas de I'Oreto.
Cinq jours plus tard, nu expose fut fait par ces '' officiers,'' en i^ponse h cette demande)
coutenaut en substance ce qui suit:
'^ Si la representation faite par M. Adams est d'accord arec les falts, la coDstruction
et Vdquipement du steamer sont nne violation manifesto du foreign enlistment ad, et
des mesures doivent dtre prises pour faire ex^cuter cet act et pour empicher le vaisseM
departir."
C'dtait un grand progr^ sur tout ce qui avait eu lieu dans le cas precedent. Cet
expose reconuaissait pleiuement le devoir de pr^enir, et recommandait fortement que
des mesures convenables fussent prises par les antorit^s de Liverpool pour constater la
verite, et si Ton pouvait obtenir des preuves sufflsantes pour justifier des poursuites
conform(5ment h Facte, pour prendre ces mesures aussitdt que possible.
Rien no pouvait dtre plus satisfaisant que ces directions. Si elles avaient 6t6 suivies
dans cet esprit par les parties qui en etaient chargees, il y a peu de motifs de douter
que la couduite mdiqu^e aurait 6t6 efficace.
Mais il paralt plus que douteux que cette ii^onction produislt le moindre effet sor
ceux qu'eile concernait. Car elle aurait k peine pu atteindre sa destination avant
repoqiie oh fut dcrit le rapport des commissaires des doilanes. Ce rapport fut 6videni-
ment fait en r^ponse & la pr6cedente lettre de M. Hammond, du 25, car les rapports de
'y est fait aucune allusion dans cettu reponse.
fait que le vaisseau est destine b, 6tro un vaissean de guerre ; mats qa'aucunepreuve de
sa destination n'a ete produite qui suffise k iustifier des poursuites, et, qu'di moins que
le consul, M. Dudley, ne ptlt produire une telle preuve au receveur du port, toute teu-
tative de saisir le vaisseau n'aboutirait qxi'k attirer sur les poursuivants des conse-
quences tr^s-serieuses.
OPINIONS OP MB. ADAMS. 173
The report of the commissioners terminates in the customary form,
to wit:
We beg to add that the officers at Liverpool will keep a strict watch on the vessel,
and that any farther information that may be obtained concerning her will be forth-
with reported.
On a first examination this paragraph would seem by its terms to
imply a promise in the nature of a pledge of constant vigilance ; but
upon comparing the phrases with the almost identical ones used in the
preceding case of the Oreto, and observing the results which happened
in both cases, it must be inferred that it was regarded by the parties
only as one of the established forms of ending a dispatch.
A copy of this report was, on the 4th of July, transmitted to Mr.
Adams, with a request that the United States consul at Liverpool, Mr.
Dudley, should be instructed to submit to the collector of the customs
BQch evidence as he might possess* tending to dhow that his suspicions
as to the destination of the vessel were well founded.
The name of this collector was S. Price Edwards, and I have already
had occasion to point out in my examination of the destination of the
Oreto the very peculiar situation in which he was placed by the repre-
sentations on that subject made by him at that time to Her Majesty's
government.
Mr. Dudley, in accordance with Mr. Adams's instructions, accordingly
addressed to Mr. Edwards, on the 9th July, a letter furnishing a long
array of details as to the nature and source of the information he had
obtained, and providing, as it would appear, abundant means of prose-
cuting further inquiries if there were any inclination so to do.
To this letter Mr. 8. Price Edwards replied by promising that he
would submit it to the consideration of the board of customs. He did
Dot fail, however, to add an expression of opinion that the statements
made by him must, first of all, be substantiated by evidence furnished
by himself.
But this Mr. 8. Price Edwards happened to have received from the
L« rapport des commiaeaires se termine dans la forme ordinaire, c'e8t-{i-dire :
**Nons prions d'ajouter (jUe les officiors de Liverpool exerceront uno surveillance
l^T^^e sur le vaiesean et que toot renseignement ultoriear qui pourrait 6tre obteuu le
concernant sera rapports snr le champ."
A un premier examen, ce paragrapne semblerait par les termes impliquer une pro-
messe dansle genre d*un engagement d'uue vigilance constants ; mais en comparant cea
Ithrases, h celles, presqu'identiques, qui sunt einploy6e8 dans le cas pr6c(?dont de
'Oreto, et en reman^uant les r^sultats arrives dans les deux cas, on pent en conclure
qn'il ii'^^tait consid^r^ par les parties que corame une des formes ^tablies pour terminer
nue d^p^cbe. Une copie de ce rapport fut transmise, le 4 juillet, k M. Adams, aveo une
demande que le consul des £tats-bnis h Liverpool fiit charge de sonmettre au receveur
desdouanes telles prenves qu'il ponrrait posseder tendant ^ montrer que ses soupgons
ik regard de la destination du vaissean dtaient bien fond^s.
Le nom de ce recevenr ^tait S. Price Edwards, et j^ai d6J^ en I'occasion dUndiqner,
daus mon examen de la destination de I'Oreto, la situation tr^s-particuli5re dans
laqaelle il ^tait plac6, par les representations qu'il fit k ce si\jet, h cette <5poque, an
gonvernement de sa M^jest^.
M. Dudley, selon les instructions de M. Adams, adressa en cons^qnence h M. Edwards,
le9jail]et, une longne lettre, fournissant une s<Srie de renseignements snr la nature et
Im sources des informations qu*il avait obteuucs, et donnant, d, ce qnMl somblait, des
moyens abondants de poomuivre des enquStes nlt<$rieures sHl y avait quelque disposi-
tion k en faire.
A cette lettre M. S. Price Edwards r^pondit en promettant qn'il la sonmettrait h
Texamen des cominissaires des douanes. II ne mauquait pas cependant d'ajouter une
expression de son opinion que les affirmations de M. Dudley devaient 6tre avant lout
v^rifi^ par des prenves fonrnies par lni-m6me.
Mais ce M. S. Price Edwards se trouvait avoir reyn, da mdme consul, enyiron trols
174 ARBITRATION AT GENEVA,
same consnl, Mr. Dudley, nearly three weeks before, a letter giving
many details strongly pointing to the destination of this vessel, which,
so far as appears from these papers, must have been entirely suppressed.
It has been published in one of the latest volumes of the papers ap-
pended to the American case. I can only account for this omission upon
the Supposition that, as Mr. Dudley's letter addressed tfi Mr. Adams on the
following day had found its way to him soon after, he inferred that a
notice of the latter would do for both. The fact really is, however, tbat
the evidence is of a different kind, and, though not decisive in itself,
was calculated to open a way to further investigation if such were de-
sired.
The letter of the 9th July was referred to the solicitor of the customs, Mr.
Hamel, who replied in the customary manner — '^ insufficient evidence.''
On the 15th of July the commissioners of customs wrote to the
collector of Liverpool to the same effect, and on the 17th copies of
papers were sent to the treasury for the information of the lords com-
missioners. »
Thus it appears that three weeks had passed since the injunction laid
upon the authorities of the customs at Liverpool to ascertain the truth,
and not a syllable had been returned to them excepting of a negative
character. No sufficient evidence of intention offered to them, and no
disposition to search for any ; that was the sum of the whole matter.
Tired of waiting for the action of Her Majesty's government, Mr.
Adams, on the 17th July, wrote instructions to Mr. Dudley to employ a
solicitor, and get up affidavits to lay before the collector. Tbat officer had
had abundant reason to know, in the case of the Oreto, how difficult it
was, in a city swarming with sympathizers in the success of these ad-
ventures, for him to find persons who, however clearly they might know
what was going on, were not at all disposed to subject themselves to the
odium attending a public declaration of the truth. He did, however,
by the 21st, succeed in procuring six persons ready to take their de-
positions before the collector. The process was completed, and the col-
semaines auparavant, nne premiere lettre renfennant force details, donnant k entendro
qu'il s'agissait de la destination du vaisseaa, qni, antant q.aUl ressort de ces doonnientS)
doivent avoir ^t^ onti^rement Bupprim6s. lis ont ^t^ pablids dausles deruiers volumea
des docaments annexes k Texpos^ amdricaiD. Je ne pais expliquer cette omission qde
par la supposition que, comme la lettre adress^e k M. Adams le lendeinaiu lui <$tait
parvenuo bieut^t apr^s, il en conclut qn'une mention de la demi^re valait ponr toutes
ies deux. Le fait en r6alit4$ est cependant que la prenvo est d'nne espJ^ce diifdrente, et
qnoique non decisive en oUe-mdme, elle 6tait calcnl6e pour onvrir la voie k des recher-
cbes ult<Srienres, si on vonlait Ies fairo.
La lettre du 9 juillet fnt envoy^e an sollicitenr des douanes, M. Hamel, qui r^pondit
de la maui^re ordinaire, "preuvesinsnffisantes."
Le 15 juillet, Ies commissaires des douanes <$cri virent an reoeveur de Liverpool dans le
mdme but, et, le 17, des exemplaires des documents furent envoy^s k la tr^sorerie poor
rinformation des lords commissaires.
Ainsi 11 paralt que trois semaiues s'6taient pass^es depnis que I'i^jonction avait ^t^
faite aux autorit<^ des douanes de Liverpool de s'assnrer des faits, et pas nne syllabe
n'avait 6t6 renvoy^e, si ce n'est d'nn caract^re ndj^atif. *' Point de preuves suffisantes
d'intention '' ne leur ^taient fonmies, et point de disposition k en chercher enx-mdmes.
Yoila le r<58um6 de toute Paffaire.
Lass^ d'attendre Taction du gonvernement de sa Mf^est^, M. Adams dcrivit, le 17
juillet, des instructions h M. Dudley afin d'employer un "avon^" et de faire faire des
declarations 6critcs et afflrmdes par serment ilk porter devant le receveur. Get officier
avait ea des raisons nombreuses pour apprendre k connaltre, dans le cas de FOreto,
combien il lui ^tait difficile, dans une ville fourmiUant de gens sympathiques an succ^s
de ces aventures, de trouver des personues qui, qnoiqu'eUes pussent savoir clairement
ce qni se paiisait, fussont le moins du nionde dispos^es k s'exposer k I'odieux qui ^tait
attacb<S k une declaration publique de la v6rite. II rdussit cependant, le 21, k se pro-
curer six personues prdtes a d^poser devant le reoeveur. L'affaire fat termiuee et le
OPINIONS OF MB. ADAMS. 175
lector transmitted them on the 22d to the commissioners of customs^
who handed them to the solicitor, who promptly retarned his customary
reply — "no sufficient evidence.'^ But the United States authority might
try to stop the vessel at their own risk.
But there were two influences now converging from different quarters
which were destined to threaten the sluggish officers of the customs
with responsibilities much greater than their solicitor had labored to
throw upon the United States.
The one proceeded from the Unite^ States agents, who had assumed
the entire labor of procuring eight depositions to prove what should
have been established by the energy of Her Majesty's government it-
self—the intent and destination of the gunboat. But they seem scarcely
likely to have had any chance of weight if supported exclusively by the
authority of their judgment alone. The first symptom now appeared of
the possibility of a doubt of the policy which had been marked out by
the customs solicitors. The papers had been submitted to the consider-
ation of an eminent gentleman of the law, a Queen's counsellor, Mr. B.
P. Collier, who, in reply, gave the following as his deliberate opinion :
I have perused the above affldayits, and I am of opinion that the collector of cus-
toms would be Justified in detaining the vesiiel. Lideed, I should think it is his duty
to detain her, and that if, after the application which has been made to him, supported
by the evidence which has been laid before me, he allows the vessel to leave Liverpool,
he will incur a heavy responsibility, of which the board of cnstoms, under whose direc-
tions he appears to be acting, must take their share.
The last sentence was the most significant of all. It was this :
It well deserves consideration whether, if the vessel be allowed to escape, the Fede-
ral Government would not have serious grounds of remonstrance.
The idea that, instead of a responsibility for stopping the vessel
thrown upon the United States, there was to be a responsibility to be
imposed upon the customs authorities and their superiors in office, ap-
pejirs never to have entered into their conception. It was like a thunder-
holt in a clear sky.
receveur transmit ces depositions, le 22, anx commissaires des donanes, qui les remirent
an soUicitcur, qui envoya promptement sa rdponso ordinaire: ^^ point de prunves suffi-
BaDtes; mais que les Etats-Unis pouvaient essayer d'arr6ter le vaisseau ^ leui-s risques
et iwSrils." ,
Mais il y avait deux influences convergeant alors de diif<6rents points, qni ^taieut
destinies h menacer les paresseux offlciers des douanes d'nne responsabilit6 beaucoup
plus fo^nde que celle que leur soUicitenr avait cherch^ h rejeter sur les £tats-Unis.
L'aiTe procldait des agents des fitats-Unis qui avaieut assumd toute la charge de
procurer huit depositions pour pronver ce qui aurait dtl etre dtabli par r^Qergiedu
eouvemement de sa Majesty Iui-m6me, lo but et la destination de la cauonniere.
Mais il semble pen probable qu'elles auraient en ancune valeur si elles avaient 6t6
appuyees exclusivement par rantorite de leur propre jugemeut seul. Alors parut le
premier signe de la possibility d'un doute sur la conduite qui avait 6t6 indiqu6e par
les solUciteurs des douanes. Les documents avaient 6 td sou mis ^ Texamen d'un
Eminent jnrisconsnlte do la Heine, M. R. P. Cpllier, qui en rdponse donna ce qui suit
cornme son avis refldchi ;
'' J'ai etudid les affidavitB ci-dessns, et je suis d'avis que le receveur des douanes
ferait bien de retenir ce vaisseau. En eflet, je penserais que c'est son devoir de le
rctenir, et que, si apr^s la demande qui lui a 6t6 laite, appayde par les preuves qui out
6td mises devant moi, il permet an vaisseau de quitter Liverpool, il encourra une
lonrde responsabilite, dont le * board of customs,' [sous les directions duquol il semble
ajyir, doit prende sa part."
La derni^re phrase dtait la plus significative de tontes. La voici : " II convient bien
de coDsid<^rer si, dans le cas oU on laisserait dchapper le vaisseau, le Gouvemement
f<M^ial n'anrait pas de sdrieux motifs de remontrances."
L'idde qn'au lieu d'une responsabilitd pour la saisie du vaisseau r€\jet6e sur les ^tats-
Unis il devait y avoir une responsabilit<S tH imposor aux autorit<Ss des douanes et ii
lenrs sup^rienrs, semble alors Stre entree pour la premiere fois dans leur esprit. Ce fut
comme un coup de tonnerre dans uu del serein.
176 ARBITRATION AT GENEVA.
The assistant solicitor of customs immediately songht to put himself
nnder the protection of the law-officers of the Crown. Meanwhile the
same papers had been transmitted by Mr. Adams to Lord Bussell, and
by him likewise referred to the law-officers of the Crown.
These papers reached their destination at different dates ; those sent
fipom the customs on the 23d July, in the evening, while those from Mr,
Adams got to them three days later, though his note appears to have
been dated on the 24th. It is obvious that this difference could have no
effect in delaying their decision. But one additional deposition was
added, which could scarcely have done more than confirm the result.
Five whole days passed before a decision was returned. Meanwhile
the vessel wa^ rapidly getting ready to depart. On the 28th, Mr. Dud-
ley's solicitor sent a communication to the board of customs, to the effect
that they had every reason to believe the vessel would go on the 29th.
This letter did not reach them until the 29th. The vessel sailed oa
the 29th. That intelligence likewise was obtained from the same source.
Meanwhile what becomes of the profession, made on the 1st of July by
the commissioners of customs, that ^^a strict watch should be kept on
the vessel, and that any further information that might be obtained con-
cerning her would be forthmth reported."
To be sure, on the 1st of August, Mr. S. Price Edwards addresses a
letter to the commissioners of customs, in which appears the following
significant line, ^'The board will see that the vesel has left the i>orti.''
How they could have seen through the spectacles presented by that offi-
cer remains to be explained. The surveyor, however, is more communi-
cative. On the day before he gravely states that he had followed the
collector's directions to keep a strict watch on the vessel. He is confi-
dent she had no ammunition on board. He had visited the tng Her-
cules, where he found a considerable portion of the crew, some of whom
were on their way in that vessel to join the gunboat. Mr. Dudley had
given the same information to the collector. Even then the vessel conld
have been traced and stopped by an energetic interposition of govern-
L^aide-sollicitenr des donanes chercha immddiatement h se mettre sous la protectiou
des officiers de la coiironne.
Pendant ce temps les m^mes documenls avaient 6t6 transmis par M. Adams ii Lord
Rnsscllj et par lui ^galemcnt soumis & Texamen des ofiBciers de la couronne. Ces
documents atteio^niront leur destination & des dates diff6rcntes. Ceox envoyds par les
douanes, le 23 juillet au soir, tandis que cenx de M. Adams leur parvinrent trois jours
plus tard, quoiqne sa note semble avoir 6t6 dat-^ du 24. II est clair que cette
difl<^rence ne pent avoir nullemeut retardd leur decision. Une disposition additionnello
fut ajoutde plus tard qui poiirrait avoir bk peine affects mat<Sriellement le r6sult-at.
Cinq Jours entiers se pass^reut avant qu'nne d<5cision fut annonc<^e. Pendant ce temps
le vaisseau se prdparait au depart tr^s-rapidemcut. Le 23 le solliciteur de M. Dudley
cnvoya une communication aux commissaires des douanes & I'effet: qu'ils aient toat43
raison de croire que le vaisseau partiralt le 29. Cette lettre ne leur parvlnt que le 29 ;
le vaisseau sortit le mdme jour. Cette nouvelle fut <Sfi[alement obteuue de la m6me
source. Pendant ce temps, que devient la declaration, faite le 1^ juillet par les com-
missaires des douanes, <}u'une surveillance stricte serai t exercde sur lb vaisseau et que
toute information ultdrieure qui pourrait 6tre obtenuo le concornaut serait rapportde
eur le champ f
Sans doute, le l^ avril, M. S. P. Edwards adresse une lettre aux commissaires
des douanes, dans laquelle se trouve la ligne significative sntvante: ''Le board verra
que le vaisseau a quittd le port.^' Comment ils auraient pu voir k travers les lunettes
pr6jent6es par cet officier, c'est ce quMl reste & expliqner. Le surveyor cependant est
X)lus communicatif ; la veille, il expose gravemeut qu'il avait suivi les directions du
seignenienl au receveur. Mdme alors, ce vaisseau aurait pu dtre suivi et arr6t€ par
une intervention ^nergique de rautoritd du gouvernement. Les commissaires des
OPINIONS OF MR. ADAMS. 177
nieot authority. The commissioners of customs preferred to send harm-
less telegraphic orders to Liverpool and Gork^ to Beaumaris and Holy-
head, which looked like dispatch, but could by no reasonable probability
have been of any avail. And the collector could promise that, ^^akotUd
opportunity offer j the vessel should be seized in accordance with the
directions given." It is presumed this must have meant if the vessel
should voluntarily present itself, aud not otherwise. On a calm exam-
ination of the evidence presented to us respecting the measures taken
by the authorities charged with the duty of prevention, it really looks
as if they had chosen to look any way for it rather than the right way.
Upon a careful comparison of the language and the action of Mr. Ed-
wards, the collector, as it has been heretofore explained in my observa-
tions upon the case of the Florida, with the course taken by him in this
case, it is very difficult in my mind to resist the suspicion that he was
more or less in dkect sympathy with the designs of the insurgents, and
uot unwilling to accord to them all the indirect aid which could be
supplied by a purely passive policy on his part. Very surely, if he had
wished actively to promote their ends, he could scarcely have hit upon
more effective means than those to which he re^rted.
It is alleged that the escape of this vessel was effected earlier than
originally contemplated, by reason of the reception, 6y the managers, of
intelligence from London of the intent of the government to detain her.
This statement appears in the deposition of one of the persons who served
as an officer on board from the start and during the whole of her first
cruise. Certainly a delay of five whole days in announcing a decision
might furnish ample opportunity for active sympathisers, of whom there
was notoriously an abundance in that capital, to watch and report every
symptom of change that might be gathered from sources of authority.
Even the fact of the long delay itself might be construed as ominous.
Of the causes of that delay no absolute knowledge has ever yet been
completely obtained. Neither is it deemed expedient here to enter into
any examination of it. It is sufficient to the present purpose to say that
donanes pr^fdrereut envoyer dMnnocents ordres t^l^graplii([aes $i Liverpool et li Cork,
k Beaamaris et k Holjbead, qui avaient Fair de d^p^cbes, mais qui, selon toute
probability, ne purent ^tre d'aucune iitilit<^. £t le recevenr put promettre que, "si
roocasion 8*en pr^aentait, le vaLsseau serai t. saisit coDformdment aux directions dou-
n^es." On doit croire quMl voulait dire, si le vaisseau se pr<Ssentait voloatairement, et
non aiitrement. X an examen calme de la preuve qui nous est soumise toucbant les
mesares prises par les autorit<^8 cbarg^es du devoir de prevention, il semble T6ellement
qa'elles avaient cboisl de regarder partout ailleurs qu'au bon endroit.
£d oomparant soigneusement le langage et la conduite de M. Edwards, le receveur,
eomnie Je Tai expliqu^ auparavant dans mes observations sur le cas du Florida, avec la
conduite tenne par lui dans ce cas, il m'est tr^-difficile de r68ister an soup(^on qu'il
etait pins on moius en sympatbie directe avec les projets des insnrg<^s, et qn'il n'dtait
lta» £M$h^ de leor accorder tous les secours indirects qui ponvaient 6tre fonrnis par une
conduite puremeut passive de sa part. Tr^s-certaine^lent sMl avait ddsird activement
les appnyer, il u'anrait gnere pu trouver des moyens plus efficaces que cenx auxquels
U eat recours.
On all^gne que T^vasion de ce vaisseau s'ex^cnta plus iAt qu^on n'en avait eu d\ibord
rintetition, en raison de la reception par les propri^taires de nouvelles de Londres de
rinteutton dn gouvemement de Parr^ter. Cette allegation apparatt dans la deposition
d'ane des personnes qui remplit les fonctions d'officier ii bora d^3 le depart et pendant
toate la dnr^e de sa premiere course. Tr^s-certalnement nn deiai de cinq jours entiers
dans I'annonce d'une decision pouvait fournir ample occasion aux partisans actifs, dont
il J avait nne abondance notoire dans cette viUe, d'epler et de rapporter tout Bympt6me
de cbangement qni ponvait 6tre recueilli des sources d'autorlte. MSme le fait du long
d^lai lai-mdme ponvait 6tre interprdte comme mena^ant. Quant aux causes de ce d61ai ,
ancune connatssance absolne n'a pn encore en 6tre compietement obtenue. II ne paratt
pas non plus opportuu d'en abonler ici Texamen. II suffit pour le but actnel de dire
12 b
178 ARBITRATION AT GENEVA.
the omission to act in season was due to causes wholly within the pro-
vince of Her Majesty's government to control, and that the failure is one
which must entail the responsibility for the great injuries that ensued,
not upon the innocent parties whom it was the admitted duty of that
government to have i^rotected, but upon those through whom the inju-
ries became possible.
One portion of this transaction having been, by the means already in-
dicated, with diflBculty accomplished, the other portion remaining to
complete it met with no resistance whatever. The British steamer
Bahama, laden with the armament prepared for the vessel by Fawcett,
Preston & Co., and having for passengers the insurgent Americans and
others destined to command the cruiser, cleared on the 13th of August,
on the pretense of going to !Nassau. The English barque Agrippina
almost simultaneously left London, ostensibly for Demerara, laden with
coals and munitions of war.
Somewhere about the third week in August the three steamers met at
Angra Bay in the Azores, and under the sanction of the British flag
this great fraud reached the point of its full accomplishtnent. The hos-
pitality so freely extended to strangers of all nations in that kingdom,
at once so enlightened and so energetic, had been basely abused, sdmost
with an intent, not merely to gain an undue advantage on the ocean,
but to sow the seeds of dissension between it and a kindred nation with
which it was under the most solemn obligations to keep the peace.
Thus it was that the vessel which then first received the name of the
Alabama commenced her reckless career of destruction on the ocean.
Everything on board of her was of British origin, excepting a few of
the directing spirits bent on making use of the means thus placed in
their hands to do an injury to their fellow-countrymen in America "which
they could have compassed in no other possible manner.
I pass over the minor details of the mode in which supplies of coal
were subsequently obtained exclusively from British sources as matters
of relatively little consequence, and come to what appears to me the
next essential point in the narrative.
qne la D^gligence h aeir au moment con vec able fat dfte k des causes qnMI ^tait en
tieremeut dn resHort du gouveruement de sa Majesty de contr^ler, et que la faute est
de nature 5. imposer la responsabilit^ des grands domraages qui s'ensnrvirent, non pas
aux parties innocentes, qfle le devoir reconnu de ce gouvournement ^tait de prot^ger,
mais k ceux par qui les dommages devinrent possibles.
Une partie de cette affaire ayant 6t6 accomplie avec difficult^ par les moyeus d^ji\
indiqu^«) I'autre partie qui restait k accomplir ne rencontra nuUe part de rtSsistance.
Le steamer anglais Bahama, charg^ de Tarmement pr^pard pour levaissean par Fawcett,
Preston et C'*', et ayant pour passagers les iusurg<^ am^ncains et d'antres destin^ ^
commander le croiseur, s'acquitta le 13 aodt, sons pr^text-e d'aller k Nassau. La barque
anglaise Agrippina quitta Londres presque simultau^ment, en apparence pour Te
Danemark, charg^e de charbon et de munitions de guerre.
Vers la troisi^me semaine d^aorQti les trois steamers se rencontr^rent & Angra Bay,
aux Azores, et, sous la sanction du pavilion britannique, cette grande frauds atteignit
le point de son entier a<icomplissement. On avait honteusement abua^ de I'hospitalit^,
si lib^ralement <$tendne aux strangers de toute nation, dans ce royaume k la fois si
<^claird et si 6nergique, presqu^avec Pintention, non-seulement d'obtenir un avantage
illi^gitime sur I'oc^an, mais de semer des gerraes de dissensions entre lui et une nation
parente, avec laquelle il dtait dans Tobligation la plus solennelle de garder la paix.
Ce fut ainsi que le vaissean, qui, alors pour la premiere fois, re^ut le nom de FAIabama,
commen^a sa carrii^re effr6ii6e de debtrnction sur I'oc^^an. Tout k son bord c^taitd'ori-
gine angl lise, excepts quelques-uns des esprits dirigeants, r^solus k faire usage des
moyens ainsi mis entre leurs mains pour faire k leurs compatriotes en Amcrique un
domroage qu'ils uWraient pu accomplir en aucunQ autre mani6re.
Je passe sur les petit<s details du mode par lequel de subsides de charbon fnrent en-
suite obteuus exchisivement de sources britanniques, comme objet de pen d'roport^nce
relativement, et j'en vieus a ce qui me paralt Hre le point suivan( essentiel dans ce
r^cit.
OPINIONS OF MR. ADAMS. 179
On the 11th of January, Captain Semmes, whilst on his cruise off the
coast of the United States, met the United States gun<boat Hatteras,
and, after a short engagement, sent her to the bottom. He was com-
I)elled to take the prisoners on board, and having received six large
shot -holes at the water-line, to navigate the ocean not without peril, in
quest of a port of some sovereign power or other in which he could not
only land his excess of numbers but likewise obtain the necessary means
wherewith to renew his capacity of cruising at all. The captain seems
to have reflected U|^ou the matter carefully, and to have maiie up his
mind that, although at a very considerable distance from his actual
position, his best chance of a favorable reception would be in a port of
the kingdom whose laws had been so dexterously defied. He accordingly
made his way, not without great diflBculty, to Port Royal, in Her Majesty's
island of Jamaica. In his own statement of this transaction will be
most clearly discovered the state of his feelings on approaching this
crucial experiment :
This woH the first English port I had entered since the Alabama had been commis-
sioned, and no question whatever as to the antecedents of my ship was raised. I had,
in fact, brought in pretty substantial credentials that I was a ship of war, 130 of the
officers and men of one of the enemy's sunken ships. Great Britain had the good sense
not to listeu to the frantic appeals either of Mr. Seward or Minister Adams, both of
whom claimed, as the reader has seen, that it was her dnty to stultify •herself and
ignore the commission of my ship. Nor did Commodore Dunlop say anything to me
uf my destruction of British property, &c.
From this passage it appears very clearly that the possibility of such
an obstacle had not been entirely out of the line of his apprehension.
If the objection had been made, it is altogether probable that the career
of this vessel would have been terminated in a manner very different
from that which subsequently happened. But it was not raised. Gov-
enior Eyre, who was then the ruling authority, appears to have acted
with some hesitation, and to have been mainly determined by the ob-
\ions necessity of landing the great number of prisoners as a pure act
Le 11 Janvier, le capitatne Semmes, pendant quMl croisait le long de la cAte des £tats-
Unis, rencontra la canonni^re des Ktat«-Unis le Hatteras, et, apr^ un court engage-
' ment, la coula k fond. II fnt oblig6 de prendre les prisonniers A bord, et, le vaisseau
ayant six grand trons de boulets h fleur d'eau, il dut navigner snr I'ocdan, non sans .
p^fril, en quSte ,d'nu port d'une puissance soiiveraine quelconque, dans lenuel il pftt,
non-senlement mettre ^ terre le snrcrolt de ces personnes, mais aussi obtenir les moyens
D^cessaires pour se remettre en ^tat de croiser, ce qn^l ne ponvait pas faire sans cela.
Le capitaine paralt avoir r^fl6chi soigneusement sur ce sujet, et avoir d^cidd que, quoi-
qae k une distance tr^consid^rable de sa position actuelle, la meilleure chance pour
lai d'nne reception favorable serait dans nn port du royaume dont les lois avaient 6t^
si babilement brav^es. £n consequence, il se dirigea, uon sans grande difficult^, vers
Port Royal, dans I'lle de la Jamaique, appartenant i\ sa Majesty. Dans' son propre ex-
pos^ de cette ailaire, on decouvrira tres-nettement V6tat de ses sentiments h rapproche
de cette ^preuve supreme :
" Ce fut le premier port anglais dans lequel j'entrais depuis que VAlabama avait 6t6
comoiissionu^, et ancune question sur les antecedents de mon navire ne fnt soulev^e.
•Favais apporte en effet des lettres de cr^ance assez substantiell^, prouvant que j'etais
nn 'vaisseau dn guerre : cent trente officiers et soldats de Tun des vaisseaux ennemis
conie k fond. La Grande-Bretague avait eu le bon sens de ne prfiter I'oreille ni aux
appels freneticjues de M. Seward ni h ceux du ministre Adams, qui tous deux sou^-
naient,comme lelectenr I'a vu, que c'dtait son devoir de se renier elle-niAme et dMgnorer
la commission de mon navire. Le commodore Dnnlop ue me dit rien non plus au sujet
lie la destrnction par moi de propridt<5s anglaise^," etc.
II ressort tree-clairement (le ce passage que la possibility d'nn tel obstacle n'avait
pas ^\6 entierement etraug^re h ses apprehensions. Si I'objection avait ete faite, il
est tri's-probable qne la carriere de ce vaisseau aurait ete terminee d'nne mani^re bien
(lifferente de celle qui eut lieu dans la suite. Mais ello ne fnt pas soulevee. Le gou-
veriicar Eyre, qui etait alors I'autorite regnante, semble avoir agi avec quelqno hesi-
tation et avoir ete suftont determine par la ndcessite claire de mettre ^ terre le grand
180 ARBITRATION AT GENEVA.
of humanity. The order sanctioning the repairs does not appear to
have been expressed by him in terms, and he immediately addressed a
letter to the Duke of Newcastle, the colonial secretary at home, submit-
ting the facts, and soliciting his approbation.
On the 14th of February, by a letter from Mr. Hammond, on behalf
of Earl Eussell, that approbation appears to have been granted, though
not without reluctance, for 'it is followed by an injunction to get rid of
the vessel as soon as possible.
Nevertllfeless the evil was done. And by this proceeding Her Majes-
ty's government appear, at least to my eyes, practically to have given
their formal assent to the principle in international law that success
SANCTIFIES A FRAUD. In the memoir which I have heretofore prepared
on the subject of the Florida, I have gone so much into the examination
of that question that there is no necessity for my dwelling upon it fur-
ther. 1 have always regretted that on this occasion Her Majesty's gov-
ernment failed to use the occasion for establishing a law on the ocean
most consistent with the principles of equity which should prevail upon
men, and not unlikely, in the distant future, to inure to the benefit of
her own marine quite as largely as to that of any other nation
The next step in the order of events essential to the purposes of the
narrative was the arrival of Captain Semmes at Cape Town. But I do
not, at this time, propose to pursue the matter further, partly because
the consideration of it is likely to be renewed in examining the case of
the Tuscaloosa, and partly because the facts material to a judgment in
the case seem to me to have been already collected.
It thus appears that this vessel was built and fitted up with the intent
to carry on war with the United States, in the kingdom of Great Britain,
in violation of her laws, and that, notwithstanding the evidence of the
fact was established so far in the opinion of Her Majesty's law-officers
as to justify detention, by reason of the absence of due vigilance, not
without suspicion of connivance on the part of some of Her Majesty's
officers, and of an extraordinary delay in issuing the necessary orders at the
, •>-
nombre de prisonniore comme un pur acte d'hnmaiiit<5. L'ordre sanctionnant les re-
parations ne paralt pas avoir 6t4 exprim^ par lui formellement, et il adressa imm^di-
atement nne lettre au duo de Newcastle, secretaire des colonies en Angleterre, lui
sonmettant les faits et sollicitant son approbation.
Le 14 fcvrier, par une lettre de M. Hammond, snr Tordre du Corate Russell, cette
approbation paralt avoir 6t6 accord^e, quoique non sans r<^pugnauce, car elle est suivie
d^une iojouction de faire partir le vaissean le plus vite possible.
N^anmoins le mal 6tait fait, et par cette condnite le gouyernement de sa Msgeste
semble, au moins ii mes yeux, avoir donn^ pratiquement squ assentiment fonnel au
principe de loi internationale que le " succ^ sanctifie une fraude.'' Dans le m^moire que
j'ai prdpard d6j^ au siget du Florida, je suis entr^ si longuement dans Texamen de cette
question qu'il n'y a nulle ndcessitd de m*6tendre davantage ld,-dessus. J'ai toujours
regrette qii^ cette occasion le gonvernement de sa M^est€ ait manc^u^ de saisir Foc-
casion d'dtablir une loi maritime tout ^ fait en rapport avec les principes d'dqnite qui
devraicnt prdvaloir parmi les hommes, et c[ui vraisemblablement & I'avenir coutri-
buera a I'avantage de sa i)ropre mariue aussi largement qu^i^ celni de toute auir^ na-
tion.
Le pas suivant dans I'ordre des ^Sv^nements essentiels au but de ce r^cit fut Tarrivee
dii capitaine Semmes k Cape Town. Mais je ne me propose pas maintenant de poirr-
Kuivre ce sujet plus longtemps, en partie parce que Texameu doit en ^tre renouvel^ en
examinant le cas du Tuscaloosa, et en partie parce que les faits qui doivent fournir la
mati^re d'uu jugement dansoe cas me semblent avoir 6t6 d6]h ri^unis.
II semble ainsi: l** que ce vaisseau a 6t6 construit et 6quipd, avec Tintention de faire
la guerre aux £tats-Unis, dans le royanme de la Grande-Breta^e, en violation de ses
lois ; 29 que, quoique la preuve du fait ait 6t6 stabile dans I'opmion des officiers de la
loi de sa Majest46 assez pour jnstiiier une saisie, en raison de Tabsence '^des dues
diligences,'' non sans soupgon de connivence de la part de quelques officiers de sa
Majest<$ et d*un d€lai extraordinaire & donner les ordres ndcessaires au moment le plus
OPINIONS OF MR. ADAMS. 181
most critical momeut, the vessel was suffered to escape oat of the juris-
diction. That her armament, her supplies, and her crew were all pro-
vided and transported from Her Majesty's kingdom without the smallest
effort to investigate their nature or their purposes. That though orders
were freely given for the detention of the vessel at any of the colonial
ports at which she might arrive, the first time that «he did actually ap-
l)ear she was received aud recognized with all the honors due to the
marine of a recognized belligerent power, without the smallest mani-
festation of dissatisfaction with the gross violation of laws that had
entailed upon Her Majesty's government a grave resp5usibility to a power
with which she was at peace.
Thus it appears to me beyond a doubt that in the case of the Ala-
bama, Great Britain, by her omission to exercise due diligence in pre-
venting the fitting out of this vessel, which it had reason to believe in-
tended to cruise against a power with which it is at peace, has failed to
fulfill the duties set forth in the first article prescribed to the arbitrators
as their guide under the terms of the treaty of Washington.
VI. — THE TUSCALOOSA.
In the series of papers which it has been my duty to prepare upon
the vessels successively brought to the attention of the tri-
bunal, I have proceeded so far as to deduce from the evi- Tu,caioo«a.
(tence submitted one general rule, which I believe to be sound. This is,
that the assumption of a belligerency on the ocean, founded exclusively
upon violence and fraud, can at no later period have any issue different
in its nature from that of its origin.
This rule must receive another illustration from the case of the Tus-
caloosa now before us. This was a merchant-ship belonging to the United
Sttites, originally having the name of the Conrad* which was captured
by the Alabama on the 21st of June, 1863, on the coast of Brazil. Of the
case of that vessel, of its fraudulent origin, and of the unfortunate re-
cognition afterwards made of its character as a legitimate vessel on
critiqne, on permit au vaisseau d'^chapper h Ha jnridiction ; 'i^ que son armement, ses
Biibsides et son ^quipa^e fnrent tous fouruis et transports du royaume de sa Majesty
sans le plus petit effort pour rechercber leur nature on leurs projets ; 4° que, quoique
des ordres aieut ^t^ librement donnS pour la saisie du vaisseau dans quelque port des
co]ouieA qu'il pi^t arriver, la premiere fois qu'il y apparut r6ellement, il fut royu et
reconnu avec tons les bonne urs dAs k la marine d'une puissance belligdrante reconnue,
sans la plus petite marque de m^^contentement au snjet de la violation f^rossi^re de ses
lois, qui avait attird une grave re8i>ousabilit<S envers une puissance avec laquelle elle
«'tait en pais.
Ainsi il me paralt bors de doute que, dans le cas de VAlabaraa, la Grande-Bretagne,
en manquaiit d'exercer les "dues diligences^' pour emp6cber IMquipemeut de ce vaisseau,
qa'elle avait des motifs raisounablos de croire dispose k croiser coutre une puissance
avec laquelle elle etait en paix, a man([u6 ii I'accomplissement des devoirs stipuld<)
danH la premi<^re n^gle presentee aux arbitres comme guide d'apr^ le texte du traits
de Washington.
LE TUSgALOOSA.
Dana la s^rie de docnments qu'il a ^t^ de mon devoir de preparer snr les vaisseaux
presjent<^ successivement j\ Vexamen de ce tribunal, je suis arriv6 k dMuire, des
prenves qui nous, out 6t4 sonmises, une r^gle g<^D^rale que je crois 6tre juste. Cette
r('gle est que, si Ton prend le titro de belligdrant sur I'oc^an, en se fondant exclusive-
meDt sur la violence et sur la fraude, on ne pent finir autrement que comme on a com-
mence?. Cette regie revolt une autre illustration du cas du Tuscaloosa, qui est mainte-
Dant devant nous. C'^tait nn vaisseau marcband appart«nant aux £tats-Unis et ayant
d'abord le nom du Conrad, qui fut pris par TAlabania, le 21 juin 1863, sur la cAte du
Bi^sil. Quant au cas de ce vaisseau, h son origine frauduleuse et h la reconnaissance
malbeureuse fait9 plus tard de son caractere comino vaisseau legitime sur Toci^an par
182 ARBITRATION AT GENEVA.
the ocean by tbe f^overiimeiit of the Dation whose laws it had so impu-
dently set at defiance, 1 have already submitted my judgment in a
preceding paper. That government was now destined to go through
another crucial experiment, the necessary and legitimate consequence of
its primal error.
It should here be observed that, in the order of events naturally fol-
lowing what has ever seemed to me the great original mistake of the
recognition of this false maritime belligerent, sprang up a necessity of
immediatelj' considering the question of the recognition of any prizes
which it might take and send in under the established law of nations to
any of the ports of Her Majesty's kingdom, there to await a regular
condemnation in the courts at home. Unless some* action Were at once
taken to prevent it, the practical result would clearly be that tbe whole
commerce of the United States would be in danger of sacrifice to one
belligerent in British ports without a single chance of corresponding
advantage to the other. For the fact that the insurgents had no com-
merce of their own whatever had become quite notorious. .
In order to guard against this danger Her Majesty's government
promptly resorted to a precautionary measure entirely within its power
to take, under the law of nations, the x)rohibition of the use of its ports
to either party for the admission of prizes. The same policy having
been adopted by all other naval pQwers, it became evident to the false
belligerent that nothing positive was to be gained to itself from its as-
sumption of a place on the ocean. The only motive left for trying to
keep it was the possibility of injuring its opponent. Hence, a resort to
the barbarous practice of destroying the property it could not convert
into plunder.
But this practice seems at times to have become unpleasant and
wearisome to its perpetrators. Hence, it was natural that their atten-
tion should be drawn to some manner of evading it. The commander
of the Alabama having made it the occupation of some of his leisure
hours to study the best known treatises on the law of nations, seems to
have hit upon a passage which he considered exactly to fit his purpose.
le gouveruemont de la uatinn dont les lois avaient 6t6 si iinpndemmeDt brav^eSyj'ai
d6j& soumis mon Jugenient dans un prdcddent nicmoire. Ce gouverHtoment dtait des
loFH de8tin6 ik passer ])ar uiie autre ^preuve decisive, cons^queDce Dt^cessaire et legitime
de sa promi^re erreur.
II faut remarfinor ici que dans Tordre des <Sv6ueinents qui suiyirent natureUement
ce qni m'a senibl^ toujours la grande errear originelle de la reconnaissance de ce faux
bellig<^rant, s'^leva la ndcessit^ de consid^rer imni^iatement la qnestion de la recon-
naissance de tonte prise qu'il aurait pu faire et envoyer dans qnelqn'nu des ports dn
royaume de sa Majesty d*apr^s le droit des gens, pour y attendre nn jngement r^gulier
devant les cours du royaume. Amoins de quelque mesnre prise immSliateoieDt pour
Temp^her, le rdsultat pratique aurait 6i6 clairenient que tout le commerce des £tats-
Unis se serait trouvd expose k dtre sacrifi^ h I'un des bellig^i^nts dans des ports anglais,
sans une seule cbance d'avantage correspondant pour Tautre. Car, le fait que les in-
surgds n'avaient en propre aucun commerce du tout devait Hre parfaitement notoire.
Atin de se garder de ce danger, le gouvemement de sa^Miyest^ recournt promptement
& une mesure de pr6caution quUl ^tait entierement en son pouvoir de prendre d'apr^2»
le droit des gens, la defense aux deux parties de se servir de ses ports pour Tadmission
des prises. La m^me conduite ayaut €i4i adopU^e par toutes les puissances maritimes,
il devint Evident pour le faux belligdraut quMl n'avait rien k gagner en s'arrogeant le
titre de puissance navale sur Focdan. Le seul motif qui restAt pour tAcher de le garder
^tait la possibilit^S de nuire & sou adversaire. De 1^ ^e recours & la pratique barbare
de d^tmire la propri^t^ dont il ne pouvait pas faire du butin.
Mais cette pratique semblo parfois 6tre devenue ddsagr^able et ennuyense pour ceux
qui s'y livraient. II iStait dolors naturel que leur attention se ^rt4t sur quelque
moyeu de Tdviter. Le commandant de FAlabama, en ay ant fait Toocnpation de
nuelques-uns de ses moments de loisir pour ^tudier les ouvrages 1^ plus conn us du
droit des gens, semble £tre tomb^ sur un passage qn'il consid^rait comme tout & fait
OPINIONS OF MR. ADAMS. 183
This was au extract from Wheaton's well-known work, to the effect that
a legitimate antbority might convert a captared merchant- vessel, with- ,
out condemnation, into a ship of war, to such an extent at least as to
secure the recognition of it by neutral nations.
It was probably from this source that Captain Semmes contrived his
scheme of turning the United States merchantman Conrad, laden with
a cargo of wool from a distant market, into the Confederate States ship
Tuscaloosa, tender to the Alabama, having two 12- pound rifle guns, and
ten men ; and bringing her into Her Majesty's port of Simon's Bay,
Cape of Good Hope, to test the disposition of the local authorities to
recognize the proceeding.
As nsnally happehed in the course of these transactions, the naval
officer ill command in the harbor at once penetrated the fraud. Rear-
Admiral Sir B. Walker, on the 8th August, addressed a letter to Sir P.
Wodebouse, in which he used this language :
The admission of this vessel into port win, I fear, open the door for numbers of ves-
t<els captured under similar circumstanceSi being denominated tenders, with a view to
avoid the prohibition contained in the Queen's instructions ; and I would observe, that
tbe vessel Sea Bride, captured by the Alabama off Table Bay a few days since, or all
other prizes, might be in like mauner styled tenders, making the prohibition entirely
null and void.
I apprehend that to bring a captured vessel under the denomination of a vessel of
war she most be titted for warlike purposes, and not merely have a few men and two
small gnus put on board her (in fact, nothing but a prize crew) in order to disguise
her real cliaracter as a prize.
Now, this vessel has her original cargo of wool still on board, which cannot be re-
quired for wailike purposes; and her armament, aud the number of her crew, are quite
i nsnfficieut for any services other than those of slight defense.
But this sound judgment of the gallant naval ofQcer met with little
response from the higher authorities of the Gape.
As usual, the governor had consulted his attorney-general, and, as
usual, the attorney-general gave an opinion, giving live reasons why •
convenable h son dessein. C'^tait un extrait du volume bien connu de Wheaton, dont
1e sens ^tait qn'une autorit^ l<^gitime pouvait convertir un vaisseau marchand capture,
sans jngement, en vaisseau de guerre, assez, du moins, pour assurer sa reconnaissance
par des nations neutres.
Ce fut probablement h cause de cela que le capitaine Semmes con^ut son projet de
changer le vaisseau marchand des £tats-Unis,le Conrad, chargd d'une cargaison de laiue
d'un march<S <^Ioign^, en vaisseau des ^tats-conf(^d6r6s, le Tuscal^sa, tender de TAla-
bama, ayaut deux canons ray^s de douze, et dix hommes, et de le conduire dans le port
de sa Majesty de Simon's Bay, Cap de Bonne-Esp^rance, pour ^prouver la disposition
des autorit^s locales k reconnaltre la fraude.
Comme il arrivait d'ordinaire dans le cours de ces transactions, Tofficier de marine
qui commandait dans le port p<$n^tra imin^diatement la fraude. Rear-Admiral Sir B.
Walker adressa, le 8 aoi\t, une lettre k Sir P. Wodebouse, dans laquelle il tenait ce
Ungage:
"L'admission de ce vaisseau dans le port ouvrira, je le crains, la porte t\ nombre de
vaisseaux captures dans des circonstances semblables et que Ton nommera tenders^ en
vue d'^chapper k la defense contenue dans les instructions de la Reine; et Je feral re-
luarquer que le vaisseau Sea Bride, capture par TAlabama pr^ de Table Bay, il y a peu
de jouxs, ou tonte autre prise, pourrait, de la mdme mani^re, Hre nommd tender ^ rendant
ainai la defense enti^rement nulle et non ^venue.
'* Je crois que, pour placer un vaisseau capture sous la denomination de vaisseau de
guerre, il faut qu'il soit propre k des projets de guerre et qu'il n'ait pas seulement
qoelques hommes et deux petits canons k son bord (en fait, pas autre chose qu'uu
^qaipa^ de prise) afin de d^guiser son vrai caract^re de prise.
" Mamtenant ce vaisseau a encore k bord sa cargaison primitive de laine, ce qtii est
aasez inutile pour des projets de guerre; et son armament et le nombre de son <$quipage
BOQt tout k fait insnffisants pour aucun service autre que celui d'une l^g^re defense.-'
Mais ce jngement sain de ce brave offlcier de marine tiouva peu d'6cho chez les auto-
rit^ sup^rienres du Cap.
Comme de coutume, le gouvemeur avait consults son attorney-general et comme de'
contume rattorney-general donna un avis renfermant cinq raisons pour lesqnelles ce
184 ARBITRATION AT GENEVA.
what was a captured merchaDtman to the eye of everybody else shoald
. be regarded by the government as a legitimate ship of war of a recog-
nized belligerent. He also relied on the extract from the work of Whea-
ton, having reference to a very different state of things. ' This was on
the 7th August, 1863.
The governor sent these papers in the regular channel to thfe authori-
ties at home, and in due course of time they found their way to Earl
Kussell. He appears to have been so little satisfied with the singular
result that had been reached at Cape Town as to desire a reconsidera-
tion of the question by the law-officers of the Crown. This was datal
on the 30th September.
The consequence was an opinion, not delivered until nineteen days
afterward and bearing marks of careful consideration, signed by all
three of the legal officers, the purport of which was a disavowal of the
fiction of law based upon a misconception of the doctrine of Wheaton ;
and a distinct expression of a proposition so important in connectioD
with all the events submitted to our consideration that I deem it neces-
sary to quote the very language :
We think it rigbt to observe that the third reason alleged by the colonial attonioy-
generaJ for his opinion assumes (though the fact had not been made the subject of any
inquiry) that ^* no means existed for determining whether the ship had or had not been
judicially condemned in a court competent of jurisdiction ; and the, proposition tbat^
admitting her to have been captured by a ship of war of the Confederate States, she wa«
entitled to refer Her Majesty's government, in case of dispute, to the court of her Staters
in order to satisfy it as to her real character," appears to us to be at variance with Her
Majesty's undoubted right co determine, within her own territory, whether her onlers,
made in vindication of her own neutrality, have been violated or not.
The opinion then went on to declare what the proper course should
have been. The allegations of the United States consul should at once
have been brought to the knowledge of Captain Semmes, while the Tus-
• caloosa was there ; and he should have been obliged to admit or deny
their truth. If the result were, in that case, the proof that the Tusca-
qni ^tait un vaisseau marehand capture, pour tout le monde aillenrs, dovait Hre
regard^ par le gouvernement comnie un vaisseau legitime de guerre d'un belligcrant
recounu. II s'appuyait aussi Sur I'extrait de I'ouvrage de Wheaton, se rapportaut k une
question toute difierente. Ceci se passait le 7 aoftt 1863.
Le gouverneur envoya ces documents, par le canal ordinaire, aux autorit'^s dn
royanme, et avec le'temps ils parvinrent au Comte Russell. II semble avoir ^t^ si pen
satisfait du singulier r^ultat obteuu ^ Cape Town qu'il ddsira uu nouvel examen de
la question par les "law-oflBcers" de la couronue.
Ceci 6tait dat6 du 30 septembre.
1-ie rdsnltat fut un avis, qui ne fut livrd que dix-neuf jours plus tard, renfi^rmant de<
marques d'un exameu scrupuleux, sigu^ par les trois oflicicrs l<^gaux, doiit le resuiuo
<^tait un d<5saveu de la fiction de loi, bas^ sur uu malentendu de la doctrine de Wheatoii,
et une expression claire d'une proposition si importante a Tcgard de tous les ^vene*
uients soumis ii notre exameu que je crois ndcessaire d'en transcrire les propre<
ternics:
"Nous croyons qu41 est bon de faire reraarquer que la troisi^me raison all^gn<^e par
Tattorney-general de la colonic pour son avis affirme (quoique ce fait n'ait nullemeiit
vt6 soumis ^ aucune enqufite) " qu'il n'existait ai\cun moyen de determiner si le vaisseau
avait 6t6 ou non jag6 formellement par une tfour comp6tento de juridiction ; **t la pri>-
position qu'en admettant (lu'il a 6t6 pris par un vaisseau de guerre des ^tats-confedcnS.
]1 etait autoris^ tk renvoyer le gouvernement de sa Majesty, en cas de dispute, ik la cour
de ses 6tats, aiin de donner satisfaction k celui-ci sur son vrai caract^re, nous paraU eii
d<^saccord aveo le droit indubitable de sa Maje8t<5 de determiner, dans les Hmit'es de
son territoire, si ses ordres, donnas pour le maintien de sa neutrality, out 6t6 violins uu
non.
"L'avis en vient j5i declarer quelle aurait dft ^tre la conduite convenable. Lea all<^-
gations du consul des £tats-Unis auraient dd Hre porte.8 imm6diateraent ^ la connais-
* sauce du capitaine Semmes pendant que le Tuscaloosa etait Id,. Et il aurait 6t6 oblige
d'en admettre ou dVn nier la v^rite. Si ce r^sultat etait, dans ce cas, la preuve que le
OPINIONS OF MR. ADAMS. 185
loosa was au ancondeniDed prize brought into British waters in violation
of Her Majesty's orders for maintaing her nentrality, it would deserve
serious consideration whether the most proper course consistent with
HerMajesty's dignity would not be to take from the captors, at once, all
further control over the Tuscaloosa, and retain it until properly reclaimed
by her original owners.
This opinion, so far as I have had occasion to observe, contains the
very first indication of a disposition manifested on the part of Her Ma-
iesty's advisers to resent the frauds and insults which had been so con-
tinually practiced upon her from the outset of this struggle by these
insurgent agents. Had it been duly manifested from the beginning, it
can hardly be doubted that she would have been materially relieved
from the responsibility subsequently incurred.
On the 4th of November, the Duke of Newcastle addressed a not« to
the governor of Cape Town, communicating the decision of the law offi-
cers as to what ought to have been done.
Oil the 19th of December the governor addressed a note to the Duke
of Newcastle, defending himself in regard to the action which had been
disapproved, and praying for further directions what to do. The Tus-
caloosa had meantime left Simon's Bay on a cruise, from which she did
not return until the 26th December, when she put in for supplies. But
on the 5th of January Bear- Admiral Sir B. Walker addressed a note to
the secretary of the admiralty, announcing that, by the request of the
governor, he had taken the necessary steps to ascertain from the insur-
gent officer then in command the fact that she was an uucondemned
prize captured by the Alabama, and thereupon he had taken possession
of her for violation of Her Majesty's orders, to be held until reclaimed
by her prox>er owners.
It was in vain that the insurgent entered a protest against this de-
cided proceeding. The governor contented himself with a brief answer
to the effect that he was acting by orders.
TiKscalooea Hw.t nne prise, non jug<5e, amende dans les eanx aiiji^laises en violatinn des
ordres de sa Majestd pour le maintion de sa neatralit<$, il faudrait examiner sc^riaase-
ineut 81 la conduite la plus coiivenable t\ regard de la dignit<$ de sa Mi^est^ ue serait
pas de priver I'aatear de la prise de tout contr6le jilt^rieur snr le Tuscaloosa et de le
<l^tenir ju8qu*jk ce quHl fdt proprcmeut rdclam^ par ses proprietaires primitifs/'
Cette opinion, pour autant (^le j'ai eu Toccasion de le reiuarqucr, contieut la tonte
premiere indication d'uuo disiutsition manifest<^e de la part des conseillers de sa Mi\jest^
il veoger les fraudes et les insultes qui avaient 6t6 si continuollement coramises euvers
«Ile, depuis le commencement de ce conflit par ces agents insnrgds. Si cette disposition
arait ^t^ sonvent manifest<$e d^s le commencement, on pent diBicilement douter qu'elle
uedt 6i^ mat<5riellemeut ddchargde d'une grande par tie de la reepousabilit^S qui lui fut
impost dans la suite.
Le 4 novembre, le due de Newcastle adressa nne note au gonverneur de Cape
Toit'D, lui communit^uaut la ddcision des " law-offlcers '' ^ Tdgard de ce qui aurait dd
it re fait.
Le 19 d<5cembre, le gonvernour ailressa nne note au due de Newcastle, se d<srendant
a regard de la conduite qui avait 6t6 d6sappronv<^e et demandant des directions
altorienres snr ce qu'il y avait b, faire. Le Tuscaloosa avait pendant ce temps quitt6
Siuiun's Bay pour nne cause dont il ne revint le 26 d6cembre, lorsnu^il entra dans le
lM)rt pour prendre des subsides. Mais le 5 Janvier, Rear-Admiral Sir B. Walker adressa
one note au secrdtaire de Tarairant^ annonyant qu^\ la requite du gouvernenr il avait
pris les mesures ndcessaires pour s'assurer, aupr^s de Tofficier insurgd qui commandait
alors, dn fait quo c'dtait une prise non jugde, captnr6e par I'Alabauia, et qu'en cons^^-
Maence il en avait pris possession ponr violation des ordres de sa Majost<5, et pour ^.tre
retinue jnsqn'^ ce qu'elle fdt rdclamde par ses proprietaires.
Ce fnt en vain que Tinsurgd protesta centre cette mesure ferme. Le gouvernemont
^ coQtenta d*une courte r^'ponse, disant qu'il agissait par ordrc.
186 ARBITRATION AT GENEVA.
There were at the moment no agents for the proper owners to wbom
the vessel could be transferred, so that it remained in the hands of the
British authorities, until a new letter was received from the Duke of
Newcastle, dated the 10th March, rescinding the instructions given in
the preceding one, and directing the vessel to be handed over once more
to some person having authority from Captain Semmes, of the Alabama,
or from the government of the Confederate States.
Thus it appears to me that Her Majesty's government, from an over-
sensibility to the peculiar circumstances of the return of the vessel after
once leaving her port, lost all the advantages to which it had entitled
itself for maintaining the dignity of the Crown against an unworthy
experiment upon her patience. The fact was thsft it was only making
the port of Simon^s Bay a base of operations, an additional insult.
The time had gone by, however, when this vessel could be made of
any further use by the insurgent commander of the Alabama. He had
succeeded in executing a fraudulent sale of the cargo of that as well as
of another prize, the Sea Bride, and was bound on another cruise, which
proved to be his last on the ocean.
Taking into consideration all the circumstances attending this singu-
lar narrative, I have arrived at the conclusion that as a prize captured
by the Alabama, and turned into a tender, she comes distinctly within
the scope of damages awarded by the judgment passed upon the coarse
of Her Majesty's government respecting that vessel. And if in her own
brief career it should appear that she has herself committed any injury
to the people of the United States, I am clearly of opinion that Her
Majesty's government has made itself distinctly responsible for the neg-
lect to prevent it under the rules. It is alleged in the argument on be-
half of the United States that she had captured and released one vessel
on a ransom bond, before reaching Cape Town ; and on the 13th of
September, after her visit, she captured and destroyed one more. But
I have failed to discover the presence of any distinct claim in damages.
Should such be made visible, I hold the claim to be valid.
Alore la qnestiou €tait claire : c^ctait iine prise amende dans nn port de sa Majesty
contre la loi.
Mais il D^y avait aucan agent dei propridtaires anquel le vaissead pftt Hre remis, en
sorte qu'il rest a aux mains des antoriUSs anglaises Jusqn'ilk Tarrivee d'ane nouTcUe
lettre dn due de Newcastle, daK^e du 10 mars, rdvoqnaat les instractiuns donn^es dans
la pr6c^<lente, et ordonnant qne le vaisseau ftlt livr^ de noaveau tk qnelqa'nn ayaot
antorit<^ de la part du capitaine Semmes, de TAlabama, on da gouvernement de ^tats-
conf(^ddr<Ss.
Ainsi il me semble que le gouvernement de sa Mi^est^, k I'ombre dea circonstanc^s
particuli^res de ce cas, perdit tout Pavantase qu'il^s'<Stait acquis en main tenant la
dignitd de la couronne contre la perp<Stration d'une fraude indigue.
Cependant le temps s^dtait passd lorsque le vaisseau put de nouveau 6tre employ^ si
quelque service par le commandant insurg^ de I'Alabama. II avait r^ussi h op^rer udo
vente frauduleuse de la cargaison de ce vaisseau aussi bien que d*uae autre prise, le
Sea Bride, et il faisait une autre course, qui fnt sa derniere sur Toc^an.
Prenant en consideration toutes les circonstances qui se rapportent jk ce aiaguUer
i^cit, je suis arrive h la conclusion qne, comme prise captur6e par 1' Alabama, il tombe
distinctenient dans le domaine des dommages accordds par lejagement port^sur la
conduite du gouvernement de sa Migest^ k ri^gard de ce vaisseau. £t si, daas sa coarte
carri^re, il paraissait qu'il a commis lui-mdme qaelque dommage envers le peuple des
£tats-Unis, je suis nettement d'avis que le gouvernement de sa Mn^est^ s'est rendne
clairement responsable ponr sa negligence h I'empdcher, selon les riSgles. On all^gue
dans Texpose des £tats-Uui8 qu'il avait capture et relAcbe an vaisseau sous promease
de ran^on avant d'atteindre Cape Town, et que, le 13 septembre, apr^ sa visite, il en
«aptura et detruisit encore un. Mais je n'ai pu ddcouvrir la presence d'aucune demande
distincte en dommages. Si Yon en montrait une, j'envisagerais la reclamation comme
vaUde.
OPINIONS OF MR. ADAMS. 187
VII. — THE GEORGIA.
This vessel was built at Dumbarton ou the Clyde during: the winter
of 1862-'63. She was constructed in a manner to excite very
little suspicion of the purpose for which she was intended.
Indeed, her frame proved so weak after a few months' trial as to render
her unsafe with an armament, and she was laid aside.
When she was launclied, on the 16th of January, a person known to
be in the insurgent service, by the name of North, was reported in the
public journals to have been present with his daughter, and she was said
to have given to*the vessel the name of the Virginia.
It was, however, known, by the means of an intercepted letter received
by Mr. Adams from his government, that this officer had incurred the
censure of his euiployers at Richmond to such an extent as to jirompt
his recall. The name thus given was not adhered to.
On the 17th of January, that is, the day after her launch, she was le-
l)orted by the measuring surveyor as the steamer Japan, and intended
for commercial purposes, her framework and plating being of the ordi-
narv sizes for vessels of her class.
^
On the 20th of Manih she was registered in the name of Thomas Bold,
a British subject resident in Liverpool, as the owner.
On the 27th of March she left for Greenock without exciting observa-
tions, and without clearance.
On the 30th of March a large number of men who had been shipped
at Liverpool by Jones and Company, a firm of which Mr. Bold was a
raeml)er, for a voyage to Singapore and Hong-Kong, and after arrival
there to be employed in trading tQ and from ports in the China and In-
dian seas, the voyage to be completed within two years by arrival at
some port of discharge in the United Kingdom, left Liverpool to get on
boani the vessel at Greenock. ^
On the 3d of April she left the British waters.
On the 6th, the collector of customs at Newhaven addressed a letter to
the commissioDers of customs in the following terms :
LE GEORGIA.
Ce vaiaseau fiit cotiBtrnit h Dumbarton, Bur la Clyde, pendant Thiver de 1862-63. II
fat eonstrnit de niaui^re k exciter tr^peu de sonp^ons (k P^ard da but auquel il (^tait
destiDe. En efft^t, Bes couples se montr^rent si faibles, aprte quelquea rnois d'eBsai, qu'il
deviitt dangereux uvec son armement, et il fut mis de cdt^.
Qnand il fat lance, le 16 Janvier, les journanx r^pport^rent qa'une personue da nom
de North, connne pour 6tre au service dea insurg^s, se trouva pr^ent-e avec sa fille, et
qae celle-ci donna au vaisseau le nom de Virginia.
On aavait cependant, par une lettre iutercept^e, re^ue par M. Adams de son Gonverne-
ineiit, que oet offlcier avait re^u la censure ae ses sup^rieurs k Richmond an point de
motiverson rappel. Le nom ainsi donn^ ne fut pas conserve.
I^ 17 Janvier — c^est-^-dire, le lendemain de son laucement — le mesureur fit tin rapport
daus leqnel il Vindiqaait comme steamer le Japan et destine k des entreprises commer-
ciales, ties couples et bob pUiques ^tant des dimensions ordinaires pour des-vaisseaux de
oa c]asse.
Le 20 mars, il fut enregistr^ au nom de Thomas Bold, sujet anglais, rdsidant k Liver-
pool, corome propri^taire.
Le 27 mars, il partit pour Greenock, sans provoquer d'observations et Bans papiers.
Le 30 mars, un grand nombre d'hommes qnitt^rent Liverpool pour se rendre k bord
da vaiflBeau k Greenock. lis avaient ^t^ enrdl^s k Liverpool par Jones et C*^ maison
de commerce 'don t M. Bold faisait partie, pour un voyage k Singapore et 1^ Hong-Kong,
et apr^ leur arrive 1^-bas pour 6tre employes an commerce dans les ports des mers de
laGnino et des Indes; le voyage devait se faire en deux ans, et le retour avoir lieu
dans un port de ddbarqnement du Royaume-Uni.
Le 3 avril il qnitta les eaux anglaises/
Le6, le collect-eur des douanes au port de New Haven adressa une lettre anx com-
missaires de« douanes, con^ue dans les termes Buivants:
188 ARBITRATION AT GENEVA.
The steamship Alai*, of London, 85 tons, owned by H. P. Maples, sailed on Snnday
morning, 5th instant, at 2 a. m., bound, according to the ship's papers, for Alderney and
Rt. Malo. On Saturday, at midnight, thirty men, twenty of whom appeared to be
British sailors, ten mecbanics, arrived by train. Three gentlemen accompanied them,
Mr. Lewis, of Alderney, Mr. Ward, and Mr. Jones. The men appeared to l>e ignorant
,of their precise destination ; some said they were to get 201. each for their trip. A man,
rather lame, superintended them. Shortly after midnight, a man arrived from
Brighton, on horseback, with a telegram, which, for purposes of secrecy, had been sent
there and not to Newhaven, it is suspected. Mr. Staniforth, the agent, replied to my
inquiries this morning, that the Alar had munitions of ^ar on board, and that they
were coiSsigned by to a Mr. Lewis, of Alderney. His answer was brief
and with reserve, leaving no doubt on my mind nor on the minds of any here that the
thirty men and munitions of war are destined for transfer at sea4o some second Ala-
bama. The telegram to Brighton intimate<l, very probably, having been reserved for
the last hour, where that vessel would be found. Whether the shipment of the men, who
all appeared to be British subjects, can, if it should be hereafter found that they have
been transferred to a Federal or confederate vessel, be held an infringement of the
foreign-enlistment act, and whether the clearance of the Alar, if hereafter found to be
uj^true, can render the master amenable under the cnstoms-consolidation act, is for
your consideration respectfully submitted.
R. J. DOLAN, Collector,
Ou contrastiu^ the substance *of this letter with any or all of those
communicated from a similar source at Liverpool, in the cases of the
Oreto or the Alabama, the difference cannot fail to be apparent to the
most ordinary apprehension. There is no equivocation or reservation
to be suspected here. Tlie officer seems to me to have faithfully per-
formed his duty, and completely relieved himself from responsibility.
This letter appears to have been received by the commissioners of cus-
toms on the 7th April, and they on that same day made a report to the
home office in the following terms :
I am desired to transmit, for the information of the lords commissioners of her
Majesty's treasury, and for any directions their lordships may see fit to give thereoo,
" Le vapenr Alar, de Londres, jaugeant 85 tonneanx, (propri^talre, H. P. Maples,) a
fait voile dimanche; le 5, k deux heures du matin, destin^, du moins selon les papiers
de bord, ci-apr^s, pour Alderney et St.-Malo. II est arriv<$ samedi k minoit, par le
chemin de fer, trente hommes, dont vingt paraissaient Hre dea marins anglais et dix
m^caniciens. Trois messieurs les accompagnaient. Monsieur Lewis, d'Aldemey, Mr.
Ward et Mr. Jones. Les hommes semblaient ne pas savoir an juste le lien de leur des-
tination. Quelques-nns d'entre eux disaient qu'ils devaient avoir £20 par t^te ponr le
voyage. Un homme qui boitait un pen avait la direction de la troupe. Pen apr^
minuit, un cavalier est arriv6 de Brighton, portenr d'nn tdldgramme que Ton sonp-
yonne avoir ^t^ envoy<5 dans cette ville an lieu de New Haven pour n'en pas laiaser 6chap-
per le secret. Interrog^ par moi, le courtier, M. Staniforth, m'a r6ponda, ce matin,
que VAlar avait, i!k bord des munitions de guerre consignees par . . ^ M. Lewis,
cVAlderney. Ses r^ponses ^talent braves et r^servdes ; elles ne nous ont laise^ aacan
don to daus I'esprit, ni & moi ni k personne d'entre nous, que les trente hommes et les
munitions de guerre ne fussent destint^ it Hre transbord^s en mer snr un second Ala-
bama. Le tdldgramme priv^, exp<^die k Brighton k la derni^re henre, indiqnait tr^s-
probableu^ent le lieu de r<^union. L'embarquement des hommes, r^ui tons paraissaient
^tre des sujets anglais, peut-il Hve consid6r<^ comme nne infraction au foreiffn-enlUt-
ment act, dans le cas oil il serait prouv6 plus tard qn'ils ont 6t6 transbord^s snr nn
vaisscan f<^<^ral ou conf^d^r^ f Les papiers de TAlar, sMls sout reconnns faux dans la
suite, peuvent-ils exposer le patron k des ponrsuites en vertu du customB-consoHdaUon
act t Ce sont Ik des questions que j'ose vous soumettre respectuensement.
" R. J. DOLAN, Colledenrr
£n comparant la substance de cette lettre avec toutes celles communiques d'aoe
source semblable k Liverpool, dans le^ cas de I'Oreto ou de TAlabama, la diffiSrence ne
pent manqner de sauter aux yeux de I'intelligence la plus ordinaire. On ne pent soap-
vonner ioi ni Equivoque ni reserve. L^officier me semble avoir rempli ildMemeut son
devoir et s'etre d^chargd de toute responsabilitd.
Cette lettre paralt avoir ^t^ re9ue par les commissaires des douanes le 7 avril, et le
mdme jour ils firent rapport au honie office datts.les termes suivant^ :
" On me reqniert de'transmettre, pour Tinforraation des lords-oommissaires de la
tr^sororie de sa Majestd, et pour les directions que lenrs suignearies poiirront joger
OPINIONS OF MR. ADAMS. 189
copy of a report of the collector of this revenue at Newhaveu, relative to the clear-
ance of the vessel Alar, having on board a n amber of sailors and mnnitious of war,
Mtensibly for Aldemey and Saint Malo, but suspected by the collector to be intended
for transfer to some other vessel belonging to one of the belligerents in America ; and
I am to state that the board having conferred with their solicitor on the subject, that
officer is of opinion that there is no evidence to call for any interference on the part
of the Crown.
It thus appears very clearly that whatever may have been the opin-
ions of the law expressed in this letter, the fact is certain that at that
(late none of the officers of the government had received any informa-
tion of the direction to which it could truly look for the destination of
these vessels. The whole operation had been conducted, it must be
admitted, with great skill and address. ^ Nobody had ever guessed at
the result down to the time in which it was in process of execution within
the jurisdiction of another power.
Meanwhile, let us now turn our attention to the position in which the
representatives and agents of the United States, the party the most
deeply interested in preventing this undertaking if possible, were occu-
pying.
This may most readily be gathered from the testimony of the most
vigilant officer they had in that kingdom, a man who spared no pains
and no expense to secure all the information that could be had, not
simply within his own district, but everywhere in the kingdom where
sea-going vessels were in process of construction outside of the capital.
On the 3d of April Mr. Dudley writes the following letter to Mr.
Seward at Washington :
Mr. Underwood, our consul at Glasgow, has nodonbt informed you about the steamer
DOW called the Japan, formerly the Virginia, which is about to clear from that port to
the East Indies. Some seventy or eighty men, twice the number that would be re-
qaired for any legitimate voyage, were shipped at Liverpool for this vessel, and sent
to Greenock on Monday evening. They are shipped for a voyage of three years. My
belief is that she belongs to the confederates, and is to be conveited into a privateer ;
quite likely to cruise in the East Indies, as Mr. Young, the paymaster of the Alabama
ronvonable de donner a ce siget, copie d'un rapport du collecteur des douanes iS New
Haven relatif anx papiers du vaisseau Alar, ayant ^ bord une quantity de matelots et
de munitions de guerre, ostensiblement pour Alderney et St.-Malo, mais soupyonnds
par le collecteur comme devant dtre transbord6s sur ([uelque autre vaisseau appar-
tenant d. Tun dea bellig^rants en Am^rique ; flt je dois dire que le board ayant confdr6
avec leur solliciteur sur ce si\jet, cet oMcier est d'avis qu'il n'y a pas de preuves qui
exigent une intervention de la part de la couronne."
n paralt aiusi tr^s-clairement que, quelles qu^aient pu dtre les opinions de la loi ex-
primees dans cette lettre, le fait est certain qu'^ cette date aucuu des officiers du gou-
veniement n*avait reyu de reseignements sur la direction oil il devait regarder pour
trouver ces vaisseaux. Toute Top^ration avait 6t6 conduite, il faut Tadmettre, avec
grande habilit^ et adresse. Personue n'avait m6me devind le rdsultat, jusqu'au mo-
ment oil 11 ^tait en voie d'exdcution dans la juridiction d'une autre puissance.
Maiutenant, toumons notre attention vers la position qu'occupaient les repr^sentants
et les agents des £tats-Unis, la partie la plus intdressde h em|)^cher cette entreprise, si
iwssible.
On pent s'en faire une idde plnsfacilement par le tdmoignage de I'officer le plus vigilant
M^'ils eusseut dans ce royaume, homme qui n'dpargnait ni peine ni argent pour se pro-
curer tous les renseignements que Von pouvait avoir, non-seulemeut dans son propre
district, mais partout dans le royaume oh. des vaisseaux destines d la haute mer Itaient
^n voie de construction, hors de la capitate.
Le 3 avril, M. Dndley dcrit la lettre suivante h M. Seward, & Washington :
**M. Underwood, notre consul k Glasgow, vous a sans doute dcrit au siyet du steamer
appe16 mainteuant le Japan, auparavant le Virginia, qui est sur le point de s*acquitter
<le ce porte pour les Indes orientales. Environ soixante-dix o& quatre-vingts hommes,
deux fois le nombre n^cessaire pour un voyage legitime, out 6t6 enr61ds a Liverpool
pour ce vaisseau et envoyds k Greenock lundl soir. lis sont engage pour un voyage de
croia ans. Ma conviction est quUl appartient aux confdddrds^ et qu'il doit dtre convert!
en corsaire, tr^s-probablement pour croiser dans les Indes orientales, comme M. Young,
190 ARBITKATION AT GENEVA.
tells me it has alwaj's been a favorite idea of Mr. Mallory, the secretary of the confwl-
erate navy, to seuil a privateer in these waters. I sent a man from here to Glajsgowto
accompany these men, to endeavor to find out the destination of the vessel, &.c. He
has not been successful as yet in his efforts. He has been on board, and writes that
she has no armament, and he is still there watching her, &.c.
At the d«ate of this letter the Japan was actually gone to sea ; and the
vigilant consul had not even then obtiiined any testimony whatever
upon which to establish the truth of his very just conclusion as to the
I)urpose, though not just as to the destination of tlie vessel.
l^t me DOW observe what the case was with Mr. Adams, the minister
of the United States at London. It appears, by a letter of his ad-
dressed to Mr. Seward on the 9th of April, that ''he had been long ia
the possession of information about the construction and outfit of this
vessel on the Clyde;" and upon this part of the paragraph of his letter,
singularly enough, I perceive in the counter case presented to us on the
part of Her Majesty's government, an attempt made to throw upon him
the responsibility for the escape of the vessel. The language is this :
**If recourse had been had to the navy, it is probable,'^ the arbitrators are told,
** that the complaints of the United States might not have been necessary. They
might not have been 'necessary if Mr. Adams haa communicated in good time snch in-
formation as he posoessed, instead of keeping it nndisclosed until six days after the
sailing of the Georgia, and more than three days after the departure of the Alar, and
if that information had intended to form an actual or contemplated violation of thu
law."
Now, it should be observed that this passage begins by assuming that
the information to which Mr. Adams alludes in his letter of the 9th of
April, as having long been in his possession, was the same which he
communicated to Earl Russell in hisr note addressed to him on the 8tb.
If such had really been the case, the insinuation might have appeared
with some shadow of justice. But if the context of the passage quoted
had been given entire, it would show that at the period to which he re-
ferred, ** nothing had ever been furnished him of a nature to base pro-
ceedings upon;" whereas, on the reception of what appeared more
le maltre payeur de TAlabama me dit que ^.h, atoigours 6t6 une id<Se favorite de M. Mai-
lory, le sec'r6taire de la marine confi6d^r<^e, d'envoyer nn corsaire dans ces eaux. J'ai
envoyd un homme dMci ^ Glasgow pour les accompagner, pour essayer do d<$convrir la *
destination de ce vaisseau. Juscju'ici il n'a pas rdussi dans ses efforts. II a 6t6 a bortl,
et il <^crit que le vaisseau n'a point d'armement, et qu'il le surveille tonjours," ^t-c.
A la date de cette lettre, le Japan avait pris la mer, et le vigilant consul n'avait,
meme alors, obt«nu aucun renseignement qnelconque sur lequel 6tablir la v^rit6 de s.'i
conclusion tr^-juste quant an but, qnoique erronn^e quant k la destination, dn vaissean.
Permettez-moi de faire observer maintenant la position de M. Adams, ministre des
£tats-Uni8 h, Londres. II semble par une lettre quHl adressa k M. Seward le 9 avril,
*^ qiiMl avait 6t4 longtemps en possession de renseignements sur la construction et snr
les pr<$paratifs de ce vaisseau dans la Clyde,'' et quant & cette partie du paragraphe
de sa lette, je remarque assez singnli^rement, dans le ** Counter-case," qni nous est
pr^ent^ de la part du gouvernement de sa Majesty, une tentative faite pour rejeter
sur lui la responsabilit^ de Tdvasion dn vaissean. Voici les termes :
*' Si on avait eu recours ^ la marine, il est probable," c'est ce qu'on assure aux arbi-
tres, ^* qne les J^tats-Unis n'auraient pas eu de plaint-es k adresser relativeraent k ce
vaisseau. lis n'en auraient pas eu, si M. Adams avait communique en temps utile ]e»
renseignements quMl ponvait possdder, an lieu des les garder pour lui, jusqu^;^ six joarn
apr^s le d6part du Georgia, plus de trois jours apr^s ceiui de I'Alar, et si ces renseigne-
ments eussent ^t^^ de nature k prouver une violation actuelle on projet^e de la loi."
Maintenant, il faut remarqner que ce passage commence par poser qne les renseigne-
ments, auxquels M. Adams fait allusion dans/sa lettre du 9 avril comme ayant 6t^
longtemps en possession, ^taient les m^mes qu'il avait communiqu<^ an Comte Russell
dans la note qu'il lui avait adressde le 8. Si tel avait 6t6 r6elleinent le cas, I'insinuation
anrait pu avoir qnelqne ombre de justice, mais si le contexte du passage transcrit avait
6t6 donn6 entiferemeut, on verraitqu'au moment anquel il renvoie, ** iln'avait re^u en-
core rien qui fftt de nature h servir de base 5, des ponrsnites," tandis qn'k la reception plus
tard de ce qui lui parut une preuve plus nette de faits qui se passaient justemeut alotia
OPINIONS OP MR. ADAMS. 191
distinct evidence of facts just then taking place, lie lost not a moment in
submitting them to the consideration of Her Majesty's government, in
his note to Earl Eussell of the 8th of April. For the rest, it is probable
Mr. Adams had had too long an experience of the result attending the
transmission of insufficient evidence to be particularly desirous of draw-
ing upon himself the customary replies. If Her Majesty's government
is to be justified at all in the cmirse of the transactions now under con-
sideration, it must be done by assuming the entire responsibility for her
action, or failure to act, rather than by attemx>ting to share it with other
parties, in whom it could not possibly suspect any motive for indiffer-
eni« or neglect.
It thus appears that it was not until the eighth of April, that is, six
(lays after the escape of the Japan, and three days after the evasion of the
Alar, that Mr. Adams appears to have had within his control the requi-
site means for making a remonstrance. He then addressed to Earl Eus-
sell the following note:
From iofomiation received at this legation, which appears entitled to credit, I
am compeUed to the painful concluBion that a steam- vesael haajast departed from tbe
Clyde with the intent to depredate on tbe commerce of the people of the United States.
She passed there nnder the name of the Japan, bnt is since believed to have assumed
the name of the Tirginia. Her immediate destination is the island of Alderney, where it
is supposed she may yet be at this moment.
A small steamer called the Alar, helongine to Newhaven, and commanded by Henry
P. Maples, has been loaded with a supply of guns, shells, shot, powder, &c., intended
for tbe equipment of the Virginia, and is either on the way or has arrived there. It is
further alleged that a considerable unmher of British subjects have been enlisted at
Liverpool and sent to serve on board this cruiser.
Should it yet be in the power of Her Majesty's government to institute some inquiry
into tbe nature of these proceedings in season to establish their character if innocent,
or to put a stop to them if criminal, I feel sure that it would be removing a heavy
liurdeu of anxiety from the minds of m y countrymen in the United States.
The difficulty of the situation in writing so long after the ex-
ecution of the chief portions of the operation objected to is here frankly
il ne perdit pns un moment pour les soumettre k Texamen du gouvemement de sa
Majesty, dans sa note an Comte Russell le 8 avril. Au reste il est probable que M.
Adams avait en nne trop longue experience du r^sultat qui attendait la communication
de preuves insuffisautes, pour Hre particuli^rement d^sirenx de s'attirer les r<$ponses
ordioaires. Si enfin le gouvernement de sa Mi^jest^ doit Hre justifi<$ dans le conrs des
transactions qui sont maintenant soumises k notre examen, il faut que ce soit en assu-
mant la responsabilit^ enti^re de sa conduite ou de sa negligence k agir, plut6t qu'en
cflsayant de la part>ager avec d'autres parties chez lesquelles on ne pent suspecter.
aucon motif d'indiiference ou de negligence.
II semhle ainsi que ce ne fut que le 8 avril — c'est-iL-dire, six jours apr^ Vevasion du
Japan, et trois jours apr^ celle de I'Alar — que M. Adams paralt avoir en h sa disposition
les moyens necessaires pour faire une remontrance. H adressa alors au Comte Russell
la note suivante :
" IVapr^s des renseignements re^ns d.la legation qui semblent mdriter toute croyance,
je snis amen^ h la conclusion penible qu'un steamer vient de sortir de la Clyde avec
rintention de commettre des depredations contre le commerce des £tats-Unis. II por-
tait ici le nom du Japan, mais on croit, d^s lors, qu'il apris le nom de Virginia. Sa de-
stination immediate est Tile d'Alderney, oti Ton suppose quHl pent 6tre eucore dans ce
moment. *
'' Un petit steamer nomme TAlar, de New Haven, et oommande par Henry P. Maples,
s ete charge d'une grande provision de canons, d'obns, de boulets, de poudre, etc.,
destines & reqnipement du Virginia, et il est en route pour «*y rendre ou il y est arrive.
On all^gne en outre qu'un nombre considerable de sivjets anglais out ete enr6ies k Li-
verpool et envoyes pour servir k bord de ce croiseur.
" SMl etait encore au ponvoir du gouvemement de sa Majeste de faire une enquSte snr
la nature de ces transactions, k temps pour etablir leur caract^re si ellessont inuocAites,
on pour les emp^cher si elles sont criminelles, je snis certain que ce serai t 6ter un pesant
braeau d^anxiete de I'esprit de mes compatriotes aux £tats-Unis."
On reconnalt franchement combien il est difficile d^ecrire si longtemps apr^ I'execn-
tion des faits principanx de Toperation dont il s'agit. Rien de ce qui ^t lit connu
192 ARBITRATION AT GENEVA*
conceded. Everything known thus far gave no clear indication toward
the unknown, and the only important affirmation of fact made in the
letter turned out not to be correct
On the same day this letter was written and sent, Earl Russell made
his reply. After repeating the substance of the complaint, it proceeds
as follows:
I have to state to you that copies of yoar letter' were sent without loss of time to the
home department and to the boanl of treasury, with a request that an immediate inquiry
might be made into the circumstances stated in it, and that if the result should prove
your suspicions to be weU founded, the most effectual measures mi^ht be taken which
the law admits of for defeating any such attempts to fit out a belligerent vessel from
British ports.
It is due to the government of Her Majesty to add that all it could do
under the peculiar circumstances it tried to do. Mr. Adams had pointed
out the island of Alderney as the destination for the meeting of the
Japan and the Altar. This had been to a certain extent confirmed by
the report of the collector of customs at Newhaven, the only correct in-
formation which seems to have been at first obtained. Alderney and St.
Malo was the destination specified in the ship's papers.
Misled by this information, Lord Bussell took a step extraordinary,
and thus far exceptional, in the prosecution of preventive measures.
He caused a ship of war to be ordered from Guernsey to Alderney with
a view to prevent any attempt that might be made to execute the pro-
ject pf armament within that British jurisdiction. Unfortunately the
practical consequence of having been put on this false scent was to fur-
nish the time lost there as a means of more completely carrying into
elfect the projected scheme elsewhere. Even had Her Msyesty's gov-
ernment j^ttempted to go further, it could have been no use. The object
had been completely gained within the jurisdiction of another sov-
ereignty— the empire of France.
In the case presented on the part of the United States it is urged
that Her Majesty's government might have gone so far as to seize the
vessel within the French jurisdiction, and the case of the Terceira exi)€-
jusqu'alors ne fournissait une indication claire ii Tdgard de Tinconnu. £t la seule
aiiiruiation importante faitedans cette lettre se trouvait n'dtre pas exacte.
Le infime jour oil cette lettre fnt ^crite et envoy^e le Comte Russell r^pondit. Apri>-<
avoir r^p^U^ la substance de la plainte, il continue comme suit :
" J'ai k vouB exposer que des copies de votre lettre out 6t6 euvoy^es sans perdre de
*t«mps an d^partement de Tint^rieur et au conseil de la tr6sorerie, avec priere qu'ape
enqudte immediate fClt falte dans les circonstances qui y sont indiqucSes, et que, si le
rdsultat prouvait que vos soupyons sont bien fond^, les mesures les plus efficaces que
la loi autorise fussent prises pour emp^cher toute tentative d'^quiper un vaiasean bel-
li|r^rant pour sortir des ports anglais/'
II convieut d'ajouter en favour du gouviern Anient de sa Migest^ que tout ce qu'il
ponvait faire dans ces circonstances particuli^res, 11 a essays de le »ire. M. Adaai»
avait indiqu^ File d' Alderney comme l^ lieu oil le Japan et TAlar devaient se rencontrer.
Ceci avait 6t6 coniirm6, jusqn'ii un certain point, par le rapport du collecteur des
douanes de New Haven, le seul renseignemeut exact qui semble avoir 6t6 obtena
d'abord. Alderney et St.-Malo dtaient la destination sp6cifided%ns les paplers du vais-
aeau.
Induit en erreur par ce renseignemeut, Lord Russell fit une d<$marche extraordinains
et jusqu'ici exceptionuelle, dans la poursuite des mesures preventives. II fit qa'uQ
vatsseau fiit envoyd de Guemesy k Alderney, en vue d'emp^cher toute tentative qui
aurait pu 6tre falte d'ex^cuter le projet d'armement dans la juridiction aufflaise, Mal-
heureusement la consequence pratique d'avoir 6t4 mis sur cette fausse piste mt de donuer
le teipps qui y avait 6t6 perdu pour effectuer plus compl^tement auleurs le plan pro-
jet<S. M6me si le gonvernement de sa M^est^ avait essay^ d'aller plus loin, cela n'aurait
servi & rien. Le but avait ^t^ enti^rement atteint dans la juridiction d^une autre puis-
sance souveraine, Tempire des Fran^ais.
Dans Texpos^ pr^sent^ de la part des fitats-Unis, on avance que le gonvernement de
sa Majestd aurait pu aller jusqu'^ saisir les vaisseaux dans la juridiction fran^aise, et le
OPINIONS OF MR. ADAMS. 193
(lition is cited as a precedent. Bat it seems to me that the Government
of the United States would scarcely be ready to concede the right of a
foreign power to settle questions of justice within its jurisdiction with-
out it« knowledge or consent.
It may be urged that the opinions of the officers of customs that no
violation of law had been committed in the expedition of the Alar, was
equivalent to a neglect of due diligence.
Upon which it may be remarked,* that whether right or wrong at the
date it was given, and with the information then in possession of the
government, there is no reasonable probability that the Alar could
have been seized excepting perhaps in the waters of France.
On the loth of April, Mr. Adams addressed a note to Earl Eussell
covering certain papers which went to prove the manner in which men
had been enlisted in violation of the laws of the kingdom by parties in
Liverpool in co-operation with the insurgent agents.
In consequence of these and other papers which followed them, Her
Majesty's government were enabled to take the requisite steps to bring
the chief offender at Liverpool into the courts of justice. The reports
of the trials carried on in the court over which our distinguished col-
league presides, are among the papers before us, and they satisfy my
mind entirely in regard to the justice and impartiality with which the
proceedings were conducted. The parties were all convicted, and
though the penalties inflicted were much too light, they appear to have
been thought sufficient to establish the efficiency' of the law.
It was in connection with. such proceedings as these that Mr. Dudley,
in one of his letters to Mr. Seward, wrote that " the prosecution of these
parties, if conducted vigorously with the view of convicting them, will
do more to break up these expeditions and fitting out of vessels in this
country than anything else."
Upon a careful review of these fiicts as they appear I c fore nie, I can-
not i)erceive that Her Majesty^s government has made itself in any way
• as de Vexp<^dition de Teroeire eat cit^ coinine xin pn'c<^.d{iiit. Mais il me semble qne le
Oouvernenient do8 fitJits-Unia ne s«rait jajnere dinpos^ h, reconnattro le droit d'une puis-
sance ^trangere 'X r6i?ler des questions do justice daus sa juridiction sans 8a connais-
^Dce ni son consentement.
On pent avancer qne I'avis dea ofTioiers des dou'*ne8, qn*il n'y avait en ancune vio-
lation de la loi dans I'expddition de I'Alar, 6quivalait i\ une nogligrince '* d *8 dues dil-
igj'nces."
A quoi on pent faire remarquer, qn'i tort on a droit, a la date on il fnt donn6et aveo
1»*^ renseignements qui 6taient alors en possession du gonvernenient, il u*y a nuUe
probability raisonnable que TAlar cftt pu etre saisi, si ce n'est peut-etre dans les eaux
<le la France.
Le 15 avril, M. Adams adreasa an Comte Russell une note ronfermant certains docu-
meDts qni tcndaient ii pronver comment des hommes avaient 6t^. enr6)6s en violation
<lt'H lois dn royaume par des personnes de Liverpool en coop6ration avec lea agents
En consequence de ces docnments et d'autres qui les suivirent, le gouvernement de
sa Majeste etait mis s\ meme de j>rendre des mesures n^'cessaires i)our livrer les princi-
l»anx conpables de Liverpool h la justice. Les comptos-rendns des proems jugds devant
la cour que preside notre coU^pie distingn^ se trouvent parmi les documents plac^
'levant nous, et ils satisfont euti^rement mon esprit sous le rapport de la justice et d©
rim parti aUt<§ avec le^quelles ces affaires furent conduites. Les parties furent toutes
eondamn^es, et quoique les peines inttig6e^ fnssent beaucoup trop U'li^ores, elles semblent
avoir <Su^ jug<5e8 suffisant«s pour dtablir relficacit^ de la loi. C'est a propos de proc6d68
tels qne cenx-ci que M. Dudley, dans nne de ses lettres fi M. Seward, ccrivait ces mots:
*'\jA ponrsnite de ces personnes, si elle est niende vigoureusement en vue de h'ta con-
damner, fera pins que toute autre cbose pour t'aire avorter cos expeditions et r6qnipe-
ment de vaisseaux dans ce pays.''
Dans nne revue soignense de ces faits, tels qu'ils apparaissent devant moi, je ne puis
trouverque le gouvernement de sa Majesty se soit rendu respousable en aucune mani^re
13 b
194 ARBITRATION AT GENEVA.
liable for the failure to use diligence in this case, und^ the first rule
prescribed in the treaty of Washington.
The Japan had now changed her name and become the Georgia. The
fraud had been most successfully perpetrated. An insurgent officer, by
the name of Maury, had taken the command of her, and the next thing
we learn is of her depredations on the commerce of the United States*
It is not essential to the present purpose to go into any details of her
cruise outside of the possible limits of liability on the part of Her Maj-
esty's government.
In a report made by Hear- Admiral Sir Baldwin Walker to the secre-
tary of the admiralty, dated 19th August, 1863, appears the following
paragraph :
On the 16th instaDt, the Confederate States steamer Qeorgia, Commander Manry^
anchored in this (Simon's) bay. She requires coals, provisions, and calking.
In a letter addressed by the governor at Cape Town to the duke of
Newcastle, bearing the same date, is the following paragraph :
On the 16th at noon, the Georgia, another confederate war-steamer, arrived at
Simon's Bay in need of repairs, and is still there.
It may perhaps be my fault, but after a careful search I have been
unable to discover any official report other than these as to the arrival,
the time of stay, and the treatment of the Georgia during this visit.
Inasmuch as this event was cotemporaneous with the arrival of the
Alabama and her tender the Tuscaloosa, both of which were engross-
ing the attention of the authorities of the place, it is possible that the
customary detailed report in regard to her may have been omitted.
The fact is at any rate certain that, notwithstanding her fraudulent
escape in defiance of the laws of Great Britain, this vessel was duly
recognized at Capetown as a legitimate vessel belonging to a recognized
belligerent.
In the cases of the Florida and of the Alabama I have already ex-
pressed my deep regret that this mode of proceeding should have been
de n^ligence ii oxeroer diligence, dans ce cas, selon la premiere r^gle prescrite par le
traits de Washington.
Le Japan avait chang6 de nom et 6tait devenu le Georgia. La fraude avait 6t6 ac-
oomplie aveo le pins grand suce^. Un officier insurg6, dn nom de Maury, en arait
pris le commandement, et la premi<)ire chose que nous en apprenons, ce sont ses d^pr^
nations sur le commerce des £tats-Unis.
U n'est pas essentiel pour le hut prdsent d'entrer dans les details de sa croisiore en
dehors des limites possibles de la responsabilit^ de la part du gonvernement de sa
Higest^.
Dans nn rapport fait par le vice-amiral, Sir Baldwin Walker, an secretaire de Tami-
lante, date dn 19 aodt 1863, se tronve le paragraphe suivant :
*' Le 16 conrant, le steamer des etats-confeder^s, le Georgia, commandant MauTy, a
jete Pancre dans cette bale, (Simon's Bay.) II domande du charbon, des provisious et
de pouvoir 6tre calfate."
l5an8 nne lettre adress^o par le gonvernenr de Cape Town an due de Newcastler
portant la m^Mne date, se trouve le paragraphe suivant :
'*Le 16, h midi, le Georgia, autre vaiascan de guerre conf6d6re, est arrive h Simon's
Bavi ayant besoin de reparations, et il est encore ici«"
C'est pent-^tre ma faute, niais apr^ une recherche soignense je n'ai pn decoavrir
ancun autre rapport officiel britannique qne ceux-ci sur Tarrivee, le temps de sejour et
le traitement du Georgia pendant cette visite. £n tant que ce fait se passait en m^me
temps que Tarrivee de TAlabama et de son tender, le Tuscaloosa, qui tons deux absor-
b^ent Inattention des antorites de Pendroit, il est possible que le rapport detaill<^
accoutnme ait pu 6tre omis h, son egard.
Le fait est en tout cas certain qne malgre son evasion frauduleuse, en depit des lois
de la Grande-Bretagne. ce vaissean fut dftment reconnu k Cape Town comme valsseau
l^timeappartenant k nn belligerant reconnu.
Dans les cas dn Florida et de PAlabama, j*ai dejik exprime mon profond regret que
ette ligne de couduite eftt ete adoptee tit IVgard de vaisseaax qui s'etaient rendas
OPINIOXS OF MR. ADAMS. 195
adopted in regard to vessels which had been giiilty of a flagrant viola-
tion of the laws of the kingdom. The right to exclnde them is dis-
tinctly recognized by Sir Eoniidell Palmer in a speech made by him iu
the HoQse of Commons on the 13th of May, 1864/ while he assigned as
a chief reason for not exercising it the danger that such a decision
might have an effect of appearing to favor too strongly one side in the
contest The fear of doing a thing demanded by what appears to be a
paramonnt daty of upholding the majesty of their laws because it
might possibly appear to lean too much against one party and in favor
of the other, seems to have been the guiding motive to the policy actu-
ally adopted. But the question immediately arises whether that party
had, in its extraordinary course of conduct within Her Majesty's do-
minions, earned any right to such consideration.
Be this as it may, Her Majesty's government decidexl otherwise, and
admitted the Georgia into the port of Simon's Bay, where she appears
to have remained a fortnight, repairing her decks and receiving sup-
plies and provisions on the footing of a recognized belligerent. It has
been argued that in thus deciding, Her Majesty's government made
itself liable under the second rule, as permitting one of its ports to be
made a base of operations against the United States by a vessel which
had issued from the kingdom in defiance of its laws as a hostile cruiser.
I have given to this view of the matter the most careful considera-
tion; but I regret that I cannot bring myself to concur in it. The ves-
sel escaped from the kingdom under circumstances which have already
been detailed in this paper, involving no neglect or failure of duty on
behalf of the government. If, on arriving at an English port furnished
with a regular commission as a vessel of a recognized belligerent, Her
Majesty's government determines to recognize her iu that character,
however much I may regret it, I cannot call in question her right to do
so on her responsibility as a sovereign power. This is a right I should
not consent to have drawn into question in any case so decided by
coapables d'ane violation flapcrante des lois da royaume. Le droit de les exclnre est
nettement reconna par Sir Roaudeli Palmer dans un discours quUl tit h, la Chambre
te communes le 13 mai 1864, tandis qu'il indiqaait comme an motif principal poar ne
paa Texercer le danger qa'une d^ision semblable p<lt avoir poar effet de paraltre
iaroriser trop fortement une des parties en latte. La pear de faire ane chose exig^e
par ce qui semble dtre le supreme devoir de maintenir la m^jest^ de ses lois, parce
qn'elle ponvait paraltre inoliner trop centre ane des parties et en favour de I'aatre,
aemble avoir ^t^ le mobile dirigeant de sa condaite effectivement adoptde. Mais la
question s'^l^ve imm^diatement de savoir si ce parti avait par sa ligne de condaite
Mttraordinaire dans les ^tats de sa Majesty mdrit^S aucun droit h une semblable con-
sideration. Quoi qu'U en soit, le gouvernement de sa Majesty d^cida autrement et
admit le Georgia dans le port de oimon's Bay, oti il semble 6tre rest^ une quinzaine,
i>6parant ses ponts et recevant des subsides et des provisions sur le pied d'uu beUig^
rant reconnu.
On a avancd qu'en prenant cette decision le gouvernement de sa Majestd s'^tait rendu
lesponsable, d'apr^ la seconde r^gle, en permettant qu'un de ses ports fdt employ^
eomme base d'op^^rations centre les £tats-Unis par an vaisseaa qui ^tait sort! du
royaume en bravant ses lois comme croiseur ennemi.
J'ai consacr^ I'examen le plus soigneux H cette mani^re d'envisacer la question, mais
je regrette de ne pouvoir m'y rattacher. Le vaisseau s'^cbappa du royaume dans des
eirconstances qui ont ^t^ d6j^ d^velopp^es dans ce m^moire, ne renfermant nl n^
gligence ni omission de devoir de la part du gouvernement. Si, h son arriv^e dans un
port anglais, ponrvu d'uue, commission r^guli^re comme vaisseau d'un bellig<Srant
reconnu, le gouvernement de sa Majesty d^cida de lui reconnaltre ce caract^re, quels
que puisseut 6tre mes regrets, je ne pais mettre en question son droit d'cu agir ainsl
•008 sa responsabilit^ comme puissance souveraine. Ceci est un droit qne je ne cou-
wntirais pas a laisser mettre en question dans aucun des cas oil les £tat6-Unis auraient
•
'American Appendix, \oJ 5 p. 583.
196 ARBITRATION AT GENEVA.
tbe United States. It appears to me on tlie same footing with the
original recognition of belligerency, the primal cause of all these un-
l)leasant questions — a step which I always regretted to have been taken,
but which I never doubted the right of Her Majesty's government to
take whenever it should think proper.
The Georgia, after leaving Simon's Bay, had but a short career. She
proved utterly unsuitable to the service into which she had been forced,
and finally returned to Liverpool, where she was sold, and turned into
a merchant-ship. A question has been raised as to the course of Her
Majesty's government in permitting this to be done within her harbors.
I cannot myself ])erceive the importance of the question, provided that
she recognized the right of the belligerent to dispute the validity of
such operations. That she did so is certain; for the Georgia, after her
transfer into private hands, was taken on the high seas by the United
States steamer Niagara, and sent to America as a prize, to be disposed
of in regular course of law. A reclamation attempted by the owner, in
a note addressed to Earl liussell, was met by a reply decisive of the
merits of the case.
In view of all the facts attending this case, and of the considerations
attending them, I am brought to the conclusion that it does not show
any such course on the part of Her Majesty's government as will suf-
fice to impose any responsibility for damages under the terms of the
three rules prescribed by the treaty of Washington.
VIII. — THE SHENANDOAH.
We have now reached the last vessel, in the order of events, which is
Fo-n«ndo«h. prcseutcd to this tribunal for its consideration.
It appears clearly, from the papers before us, that the steadily grow-
ing energy manifested by Her Majesty's government in preventing the
departure of vessels obviously intended to carry on war had not been
without its effect upon the parties engaged in procuring them. The seiz-
fl6cid<^ (le ni^nie. II uie paralt qu'il en est Ae ineme de la premiere reconnaissance de
ipropre au service qi
Liverpool, <»u il fut vendu et transform^ en vaissoau marchand. On a soulevd une
qnestion a r<5gard de la coiiduite du gouvernemcnt de sa Msyest^, en permettant que
ceci filt fait dans ses ports. Je ue puis coraprendre I'importance de la question,
pourvu qu'il reconniit le droit du belligdrant de contester la validity d'o|>^ration8
seniblables. 11 est certain qu'il le fit, car le Georgia, anros son transfert en mains par-
ticulifertw, fut pris en haute nier par le steamer des Etats-Uuis le Niagara, ot envoy<^
en Am6rique conime prise pour en disposer suivant la loi. Une reclamation tent^ p&r
le proprictaire dans une note adressde au Comte Kussell rc^ut une r<^ponse qui traucha
la question.
En considdrant tons Ics faits qui so rapportent h ce cas et tout ce qui s'y rattacbe, je
Buis amen6 b. la conclusiim qu'il ue tomoigne pas de la part du gouvernement de sa
Majest^S d'une coiiduite qui siiffise pour imposer aucune responsabiliuS en dommages
d'apri^s Ics termes des trois regies prescrites par le traits de Washington.
LK SHENAXDOAH.
Nous Hommes maiutenant arrives au dernier vaisseau, dans I'ordre des ^v^nemento,
prdsent^ h I'examen de ce tribunal.
II ressort claireineut des documents places devant nous que I'^nergie tonjoars
croissante manifestos par le gouvernement de sa Majesty, pour emp^cber le depart de
vaisseaux Ovidemnient destinds k faire la guerre, n'avait pas 6t6 sans effet sur les per-
sonnes qui s'Otaient engag6es ii les fournir. La saisie des bOliers ik vapenr bllnd^s
OPINIONS OF MR. ADAMS. 197
ore of the iron clad steam rams, built by Messrs. Laird, seems to have dis-
pelled all further idea of attempting open operations of that description.
Efforts were now directed to the prosecution of schemes that would
elude observation. In the execution of this policy, swift vessels, con-
structed for coftimercial purposes, were looked up. Aud when found
reasonably adapted for conversion into privateers, measures were taken
to procure the control of them so suddenly as to effect their escape from
the British jurisdiction before any means of prevention could be put
into operation.
A skillful combination of the means of supplying an armament and a
crew at some pre-arranged point on the high seas far beyond the Brit-
i8h jurisdiction, in a vessel so quickly and secretly pushed out of a
British port as to baffle pursuit, completed the adventure.
This plan had been attended with complete success in the case of the
Georgia. It was now resorted to witli a few variations in the case of
the Shenandoah.
The British steamer Sea-King had been built for a merchant-vessel
and employed in the China trade, during which period she had gained
much reputation for her speed and her sailing qualities. In the year
1864 she appears to have attracted the attention of the insurgent agents
in England, and they proceeded through their customary British affilia-
tions to get her into their hands. On the 20th of September the
purchase and transfer were effected in the port of London. A per-
son by the name of Wright, a British subject, appeared as the owner.
On the 8th of October this vessel cleared from that port in the nsual
way for Bombay, without exciting observation. The crew had been
hired for that voyage.
Simultaneously with this movement, a screw-steamer, called the Laurel,
issued from the port of Liverpool, having a considerable number of
passengers on board, and a cargo composed of an armament and ammu-
nition suitable for a vessel of war. Her nominal destination was Mata-
moras, via Nassau.
eoDstruits par MBrL Laird semblo avoir fait <Svanouir toute id6e alt^rieare de noavelle
tentative d operations de cette natare.
D^ lors, ou s'eflfor^a de poursntvre des plans qni permissent d'<$cbapper anx: observa*
tions. Dana la realisation de ce dessein, on chercba des vaisseanx rapides coustrnits
poor des entreprises commerciales. £t qnand on les troiivait assez bien adapt<Ss pour
6tre oonvertis en corsaires, ou prenait des mesure^ ponr les obtenir assez snbitement
poor effectaer lenr Evasion de la juridiction britanniqiie avaut qa'ancune mesare
preventive p<kt Atre mise i\ execution.
line habile conibinaison des moyens de pourvoir k Farmenient et ii r^quipement, snr
qaelqne point fix^ d'avance en haute mer, bien loin de la juridiction anglaise, par un
vaissean mis hors d*nn port anglais assez rapidement et secr^tement pour dcjouer
tOQte ponrsnite, completait I'aveutnre.
Ce plan avail r^nssi conipietement dans lo cas dn Georgia. On y eut recours, avco
qodqnes variations, dans le cas dn Shenandoah.
Le steamer anglais Sea King avait 6t6 constrnlt pour £tre un vaisseau marcband, et
employe au commerce de la Chine, opoqne oil il avait acquis une grande reputation
poor sa Vitesse et ^lour ses qualit<is oomme voilier. Dans I'ann^e 1864, il paralt avoir
a^ttire Fattention des agents insurgds en Angleterre, et ils cherch^rent, par leurs affilia-
tions anglaises ordinaires, ii I'acquerir. Le 20 septembre^ Pachat et le transfert furent
effectues dans le port de L<mdres. Une personne dn nom de Wright, sujet anglais,
apparalt comme le proprietaire. Le d octobre, ce vaisseau s'acqnitta de ce port en la
nani^re ordinaire ponr Bombay, sans provoquer d'observatious. L'^quipage avait 6t6
engage ponr ce voyage.
Simnltanement avec ce mouveraent, un steamer ^ heiice, nomme le Laurel, sortit da
portde Liverpool, ayant an nombre considerable de passagers ^ bord et une cargaison
eomposee d'nn armement et de munitions propres ii un vaisseau de guerre. Sa desti-
nation etait Matamoras, via Nassau.
198 ARBITRATION AT GENEVA.
The true destination of both ships wa« the vicinity of the island of
Madeira. There they actually met, on or about the 2l8t of October ;
and there the process . of transfer of the armament and the men was
effected on the high sea. ,
This operation had been conducted with a degree of success exceed-
ing that of the Georgia. Even the vigilance of the consul of the United
States at Liverpool had resulted only in the formation of conjectures,
reasonable in themselves, and partially well founded in fact, but nnsns-
tained by any positive evidence. That was not obtained until the
return of many of the crew of the Sea-King, who had refused to take
the new departure, when it was disclosed to them by the true com-
mander of the vessel, now called the Shenandoah.
Thus far I have only to repeat the observations I made in the case of
the Georgia. Placing myself in the position of any neutral power pos-
sessing an extensive commercial marine and a large number of ports,
it seems to me that no ordinary degree of diligence could be likely to
avail to prevent the execution of such skillfully-contrived enterprises.
Her Majesty's consul at the port of Teneriflfe appears to have done all
that it was in his power to do in the premises. On the arrival of the
Laurel at that place, and learning the state of the facts as given to him
by the parties on board, he prepared a careful report of the same, and
addressed it to Earl Eussell. He also assumed the responsibility of
seizing the master of the Sea- King, P. J. Gorbett, and sending him home
for trial as having, even though at sea, violated the provisions of the
foreign-enlistment act.
On the 26th of January, 1865, Commander King, of Her Majesty's
ship Bombay, writes to Commodore Sir W. Wiseman.
I copy the essential parts of his letter :
1. I conceive it to be. ray duty to report to you that a vessel of war
of the Confederate States of America arrived and anchored in Hobson's
Bay yesterday, the 25th instant.
3. Her name is the Shenandoah, a screw- vessel, &c.
La Yraie destination des deax navires ^tait lea para^i^es de Pile de Mad^re. Us s'y
rencontr^rent effectiyement verA le 21 octobre, 6t Us proc6d^rent an transfert de rarme-
xnent et des hommes en haate mer.
Cette operation avait 6t6 conduite avec an deffr6 de snoops qui d^pamait mdme oelvi
dn Georgia. M6me la vigilance da consal des Etats^Unis k Liverpool n^avait abonti
qu'& des oonjectares, raisounables en elles-m^mes, et en partie bien fondles en fait,
niais non appuy^es d'ancune preave positive, line preave de cette nature ne tot
obtenne qn^au retoar de plusienrs des hommes de P^qaipage da Sea King, qni avaient
refuse de signer le nouvel engagement qnand oelui-ci leur avait ^t^ r6v3^ par le vrai
commandant du vaissean nomm^ d^s lors le Shenandoah.
Jusqu'ici, je n'ai qn'& r^p^ter les observations que j'ai faites dans le cas da Georgia.
En me pla^ant dans la position d'une puissance nentre, poss^dant une marine ooib*
merciale ^tondue et an grand norabre de ports, il me semble qn'auouue diligenoe ordi-
naire n*aarait probablement suffi ponr emp6cher I'exdcution d'entreprises si habilement
conduites.
Le consal de sa Meyest^ da port de T^n^rifFe semble avoir fait tout ce qo'il 6tait en
son poavoir de faire dans ces circonstances. A I'arrivde da Laarel dans ce lien, et en
apprenant T^tat des faite, comme les Ini dirent les personnes ^ bord, non-sealemenl il
en |»r^para on rapport soigneux adressd an Comte Rnssell ; il assama aassi la respon-
sabilit^ de saisir le capital ne da Sea King, P. I. Corbett, et de I'envoyer en Angleterro
ponr y dtre jngd comme ayant viol6, quoiqae en pleine mer, le foreign^nli9tinent act,
Le 26 Janvier 1865, le commandant King, da vatsseaa de sa M^jest^ le Bombay, i
Hobson's Bay, 6crit aa commandant 8ir W. Wiseman. Je copie lee pifftiea essen-
tielles de sa lettre:
*^ 1. Je crois qa'il est de mon devoir de vons rapporter qu'an vaissean de gnerre dm
6tats-conf(6d6r6s d'Am^riqne arriva et Jeta I'ancre k Hobson^s Bay hier, le 25 cod rant.
" 3. Son nom est le Shenandoah, vaissean h h^lice, etc.
OPINIONS OF MR. ADAMS4 199
4. Her armament consists of eight guns, viz, four S-incb, (English,)
two 32poan(ler8, (Whitworth,) and two 12-pounders, intended more
especially for boat service.
5. The crew at present consists only of seventy men, though her
propw complement is one hundred and forty ; the men almost entirely
are stated to be either English or Irish.
8. The ship appears to be in good order, her officers a gentlemanly
^t of men, in a uniform of gray and gold ; but, from the paucity of her
crew at present, she cannot be very efficient for fighting purposes.
9. Leave had been asked by the commander for permission to coal
and repair machinery, &c.
It is to be noted here that, from the statements made by this officer,
it appears he had an opinion clearly formed that, in the condition
this vessel was in at the time she arrived in port, and with such a limited
crew, she could not be efficient as a fighting ship.
The application madn by the master of the Shenandoah to the gov-
ernor of the colony. Sir G. H. Darling, was in these words:
I hare the honor to annoance to jonr excellency the arrival of the Confederate States
steamer Shenandoah, under my conimandi in Port Philip this afternoon, and alao to
commanicate that the 8tea*v*er^(i maohiuery requires repairs, and that I am in want of
coals.
I desire yonr exceUency to grant permission that I may make the necessary repairs
ftud snpply of coals, to enable me to get to sea as quickly as possible.
It is to be noted that the object here mentioned was to get to sea,
without the specification of any port of destination.
On the 26th of January, Mr. Francis, commissioner of trade and cus-
toms, by direction of the governor, Sir Charles Darling, addressed a letter
to the commander^ Waddell, of which the essential part is as follows:
In reply, I have received the instructions of Sir Charles Darling to state that he is
willing to allow the necessary repairs to the Shenandoah, and the coaling of the ves
k
— - ' ■ ■ ■ ' ■ — ^^■^— ~»^^
" 4. Son armement consiste en huit canons, savoir, (jnatre de huit ponces anglais
deax de trente-deux Whitworth, et deux de douze, destines plus sp6cialemeut au ser-
vice des embarcations.
"5. L'6quipage u'est maintenant que de soixante-dix hommes, qnoique sou total
doive 6tre de cent qnaraute; les hommes sont presque tous, dit-on, anglais oa
iriandais.
''8. Le vaiasean bon paralt en 6tre 6tat; les offioiers sont un corps de messieurs
GommeU faut, en uniforme gris et or ; mais k cause du petit nombre de ses hommes
d'6quipage en ce moment, il ne pent pas dtre bien capable de se battre.
'^9. Permission a 6t6 demandee par le commandant de faire du charbon et de r^parer
sa machine,'' etc.
n fant remarquer ici que, d'apr^ les renseignements donn<Ss par cet offtcier, il paralt
que son opinion dtait nettement form6e que, dans l'6tat oh 6tait ce vaisseau k I'dpoque
oil il arriva dans le port, et avec un 6<|uipage si pen nombreux, 11 n'dtait pas capabls
de jouer le r61e d'nn vaisseau de combat.
La demande faite par le capitaine du Shenandoah au gouvemeur de la colonie, Sir
0. H. Darling, dtait oongne dans ces termes :
" J*ai I'honneur d'annonoer k votre exceUenceVarrivde du steamer des dtatsHSonfdddr^
le Shenandoah, sous mon commandement, h Port Philip, oette apr^s-midi, et aussi de
eommaniqaer que sa machine exige des reparations et que j*ai besoin de charbon.
''Jeddsire que votre excellence m'accorde la permission de faire les reparations
ndcessaires et lee provisions de charbon pour que je puisse prendre la mer le plus t6t
possible."
II faut remarquer que le but ici mentionnd dtait de prendre la mer, sans indiqner
suenn port de destination.
Le 26 Janvier M. Francis, commissatre du commerce et dee donanes, snr Tordre dn
gouvemeur, Sir Charles Darling, adressa une lettre au commandant Waddell, dont la
psrtie essentieUe est eomme il suit :
'*£u rdponse, J'ai re^u pour instructions, de Sir Charles Darling, de vons dire qu'il
est dispose k accorder les reparations necessalres au Shenandoah, et Tap provision ne-
200 ARBITRATION AT GENEVA.
sel bein^ at once proceeded with, and tbat the necessary directions have been given
accordingly.
At the same time Mj*. Francis communicated to this officer a copy ot
the general orders of the Duke of Newcastle, in regard to what is called
the twenty-four hours rule, and likewise those embraced in a letter
of Earl Russell to the Duke of Newcastle, of the 31st January, 1862,
covering regulations applicable to all questions ordinarily arising out of
the arrival of similar vessels.
On the 26th, the 27th, and 28th of January, Mr. Blanchard, the consul
of the United States at Melbourne, addressed to Sir Charles Darling
three successive letters, protesting against the recognition of this vessel
as belonging to a belligerent, on the ground of her origin, her conver-
sion at sea, and her actual condition.
On the 30th of January, his excellency states to the council of the
colony :
That he had replied to the United States consul to the effect that, havin$^ given au
attentive cousideratiou to his letter, and having consulted with the law-officers of the
Crown, he had come to the decision* that the government of this colony were bound to
treat the Shenandoah as a ship of war belonging to a belligerent power.
His excellency then consults the council on the only point upon which he thought
any doubt could arise, viz, whether it would be expedient to call upon the lieutenant
commanding the Shenandoah to show his commission from the government of the Con-
federate States, authorizing him to take command of that vessel for warlike purposes.
After a brief consultation, a majority of his advisers tender their opiniou that it
would not be expedient to do so.
I do not find, on the part of Her Majesty's government, any notice of
this decision among the papers before us. Thus, it appears that
once more it had been determined to sanction a proceeding known to
have been executed in defiance of the laws of Great Britain, and of the
pledges of the government to maintain a strict neutrality in the contest.
The principle that success sanctions a fraud had again been ratified
under circumstances which could not fail, and did not fail, to entail upon
its supporters the heaviest kind of responsibilities.
ment de charbon dn vaisseau, auquel on pent procdder de suite, et que les ordres n^as-
aaires ont 6t6 donnas en consequence. *'
£n mdme temps, M. Francis communiquait ^ cet officier un exemplaire des ordres
g^^raux du due de Newcastle sur ce qu'on appelle la r^gle des viugt>qnatre heures, et
aassi oeux contenus dans une lettre du Comte Russell au due de Newcastle, du 31 jan-
Tier 1862, renfermaut des rt^gles applicables h toutes les questions que soulevait ordi-
nairement TarriviSe de vaisseaux semblables.
Le 26, le 27 et le 28 ianvier, M. Blanchard, consul des £tats-Unis k Melbourne,
fdressa L Sir Charles Darling trois lettres successives, protestaut centre la reconnais-
sance de ce vaisseau comme apparteuant £^ nn belligdraut, s)l cause de son origine, de sa
transformation en nier et de sa condition actuelle.
Jje 30 ianvier, son excellence expose au conseil de la colonic :
'^Qu'il avait rcpondu au consul des £tats-Un is en substance, qu'ay ant donne une
attention s^rieuse i\ ces lettres, et ayant consult<$ les ' law-officers ' de lacouronne, il
avait decide que le gouveruement de cette colonic 6tait obligd de traiter le Shenandoah
comme vaisseau de guerre apparteuant ii un pouvoir belligerant.
** Son excellence consulte alors le couseil sur le seul point sur leqnel il pensait qn'un
donte ptit s'^lever, h savoir, s'il serait convenable d'inviter le lientenant commandant
le Shenandoah i\ montrer sa commission du gouveruement des 6tats-conf(6ddr68 I'au-
torisant & prendre le commandement de son vaisseau pour des projets gnerriers.
"Apr^s une br^ve d<Slib6ration, une majority de son conseil donna son avis qn'il no
serait pas tk propos de le faire."
II ne se trouve de la part du gouvemement de sa Mt^jest^ ancune trace de cette
decision dans les documents qui sent devant nous. Ainsi il paralt qu'uue fois de plus on
d^cida de sanctionner un acte connu pour avoir 6t6 ex6cut6 en d^fi des lois de la Grande-
Bretagne, et des promesses du gouvemement de maint«nir une stricte neutrality dans le
Gonflit. Le principe que le succes sanctionne une fraude avait ^t^ de nonveau ratifie, dans
des circonstances qui ne pouvaient pas manquer et qui ne manqu^rent pas d-attirer
sur ses partisans la reBponsabilii^ la plus lourde.
OPINIONS OF MR. ADAMS. 201
For, in the series of conseqaences that happened at Melbourne, it
was no more than natural to expect that the parties guilty of the first
offense should be likely to resort to others of the same nature whenever
there shoul(} appear that any advantages were to be gained by it. The
authorities at Melbourne seem at first to have acted as if the baptism
of the vessel into a new name had, in their eyes, washed it white of all
its past sins. They were destined to learn a different lesson, but nobody
seems to have repented, with the exception, perhaps, of the governor
himself, whose latest significant declaration on that subject I shall have
occasion to notice hereafter.*
The application of the insurgent officer Waddell for leave to make
repairs and get supplies was made on the 25th of January. Five
days passed, and he had just discovered, from an examination made by
a diver, that repairs were necessary under the wat»er-line, which would
require that the vessel should be placed on the government slip, there
to continue not more than ten days. Meanwhile he had not yet be-
thought himself to give to the authorities, who had requested it, any
report as to the quantity and the nature of the supplies which he
desired.
Thus delays were interposed, for one reason or other, until the 18th of
February, when the vessel sailed.
The commander had in this way managed to secure a period of twenty-
three days, during which time he could set in operation the means of
starting ou his projected expedition in an effective manner.
It should here be observed that, in all his movements, he was much
favored by the almost universal sympathy of the residents at Melbourne
and the colony. Whatever he could ask that was permissible they
would enthusiastically furnish. Whatever he dared to do that was not,
they were indisposed to perceive or to disclose.
Under these circumstances, there cannot be a doubt that, during all
Car, dans la s^rie des etfets qni se prodnisatent s\ Melbonrne, il n'<Stait que naturel
(Tattendre que les personnes coapables de cette offense t\ Torigine recourraient probable-
ment ii d^antres mo^-eus de la ra^me nature toat-cs lee ibis qa'il paraltrait qa'un but
Btile pourrait ^tre atteint de cette maniere. Les autorit^s de Melbourne semblent
d'aboM avoir agi comme si le bap tome de ce vaisseau d'un nouveau nom Favait pnrifid
de tons see p^b^ pass^ ii lenro yenx. Le destin avait une autre le^on ^ leur appren-
dre, mais parsonne ne semble s*6tre repenti, t\ Fexception peut-dtre du gouverneur lui-
m^me, dout j'aurai occasion de meutiouner ci-apres la derni^re declaration siguifi-
eative.
La demande de TofHcier insure^e, Waddell, quMl lui fdt permis de faire des reparations
et d*obtenir des provisions, fut uiite le 2.5 Janvier. Cinq jours se pass^rent, et il venait
dedeconvrir, par un examen fait par un plongeur, que des reparations etaient neces-
saires sous la ligne de flottaison, ce qui exigerait que le vaisseau fCit place sur le berdu
goavemeinent pour n'y rester que dix jours. En attendant, il u'avait ptis encore songe
idoDuer aux autorites, qui I'avaient demande, un rapport sur la quautite et la nature
des subsided quUl desirait.
Ainsi des deiais intervinrent, pour uue raison ou pour une autre, jusqu'au 18 fevrier,
oik le vaisseau partit.
Le commandant avait manGDUvrc de cette fa^on pour s'assurer une periode do vingt-
trois jonrs, pendant laquelle il put mettre Hl execution les moyeus de partir iK>ur sou
expedition projetee d'une maniere effective.
II fkat remarquer ici que dans tous ces mouvements il fut extrdraenient favorise par
la syropathie presque universelle des habitants de Melbourne et de la colonic. Quoi
QQ'il deniand&t de choses permises, ils voulaient bien les lui fouruir avec enthousiasme.
Qaoi qu'il os4t faire d'injusto, ils u^etaient pas disposes h, le voir ni ii le decouvrir.
Dans ces circonstances, on ne pent doubter que, pendant tout cet intervalle de temps,
' British Appendix, vol. i, p. 722.
202 ARBITRATION AT GENEVA.
this interval of time, he was coDstantly busy in secretly obtaining addi-
tions to his crew. This was indispensable to his ulterior operations.
Had the matter depended on the energy of the authorities and popu-
lation of Melbourne alone to prevent this, he would have had all he
wanted without a word of notice. Unluckily for him, he found tiie
consul of the United States, Mr. Blanchard, on the watch to check and
expose his proceedings by all the means in his power. On the lOth of
February, that officer addressed a letter to the governor inclosing the
deposition of John Williams. In it, this witness affirmed that, on tbe
Monday previous, there had been fifteen or twenty men concealed ia
different parts of the ship, who had gone on board since her arrival
sixteen days before.
This statement it is material to connect with a part of the report made
by Captain Payne to the authorities on that same day. He had been
instructed to make a careful examination of the vessel. In his report
he has this passage :
There appears to be a mystery about her forehold, for the foreman of the patent slip,
when asked to go down to that spot to measure her for the cradle, was informed he
could not get to the skin at that place. The hatches were always kept on, and the
foreman states that he was informed they had all their stuff there.^
Another witness, obtained by Mr. Blanchard, named Walter J. Mad-
den, testified that, when he left the vessel on the 7th of February,
"there were men hid in the forecastle of the ship and two working in
the galley, all of whom came on board of said vessel since her arrival
in that port ; that the officers pretend they do not know that said men
are so hid."
On the 14th of February Mr. Blanchard sent another deposition, of a
man named Herman Wicke, specifically naming one person as having
come on board. These are his words :
The rations in Hobson's Bay are sent out by the master-at-arms, who gives them to
Quartermaster Vickiugs, and this latter brings them to the gaUey to be cooked, by
il ne fftt constamment h rcenvre ponr obtenir secr^tement nne augmentation consid^rar
ble de son Equipage. Ceci 6tait indispensable pour ses operations ult^rieores.
S'il edt ddpendn de r^nergie dee autoritds et de la population de Melbourne senle.
ment de Pempteher, il aurait eu tout ce dout il avait beeoin sans un mot de critiqoe*
Malhenreusement ponr lui, il tronva le consul des £tats-Unis, M. Blanchard, aax
aenets, pour rdpriraer et pour d<5roiler, par tous les moyens en son pouvoir, ses pro-
ced6s illdgaux. Le 10 f6vrier, il adressa nne lettre au gouvemeur, renfermant la
deposition de John Williams. Dans ceUe-ci, ce t^moin affirmait que le Inndi pr^o^
dent il y avait eu quinzo on vingt hommes cach6s dans diffdrentes parties du vaisseaoi
qui 6taient alldes k bord depuis son arriv6e, seize jours auparavant.
II est essentiel de rapprocher cette affirmation u'un para^raphe d'un rapport fait oe
m6me jour par le capitaine Payne anx antorit6s. H avait re^u Tordre dVxaminar
soigneusenient le vaisseau. Dans son rapport se tronve oe passage :
*' II semble quMl y a un myst^re h regard de sa calo d'avant, car le contre-maltre da
ber patents, lorsqn^on lui demaoda d'y descendre pour le mesurer en vne de le mettrs
sur le berccan, fut inform^ qu'il ne pouvait pas arriver jusqu^il la coque en*cet endroit.
Les panneaux de recoutiile etaient toujours ferm^s, et le contre-maltre depose qa'oa
lui a dit quMls y avaient toutes leurs affaires."
Un autre t^moin, t^-onv^ par M. Blanchard, nomm^ Walter 6. Madden, d^posa quo
lorsqn'il quitta le vaisseau, le 7 fdvrier, il y avait des hommes caches dans le gaillard
d'avant du vaisseau, et deux qui travaillaient dans la cuisine ; tons ils etaient veons ^
bord du dit vaisseau depuis son arriv^e dans ce port ; que les officiers pr^tendent do
pas savoir que ces dits hommes soient ainsi caches.
Le 14 f^vrier, M. Blanchard envoya une autre deposition d'nn hommenomme HermAa
Wicke, indiquant, par son nom sp^cialement, une personne comme etant venue k bonL
Voici ses paroles :
" Les rations h, Hobson's Bay sont servies par le capitaine d'armes qui les donne an
•qnartier-maltre Vickiog, et ce dernier les porte k la cuisine pour y 6tre cuites par an
* British Appendix, vol. 1, p. 557.
OPINIONS OF MR. ADAMS. 203
rook known by the name of Charley; that said cook Charley was not onboard the
Shenandoah on her arrival in the bay ; he went on board since her arrival, and he
told me he would join the ship as cook ; that he dared not to do it in port, but that he
wonld do it when proceeding outwards ; that I also saw said cook take rations to a
nnmber of men concealed in the forecastle, who went on board since her arrival in
Hobson's Bay.
This testimony was laid before the law-officers, who deemed the first
depositioa by itself suflBcient evidence to lay informations against the
man enlisted, and this appears to have prompted the council, not to
take any proceedings against the commander, but to direct an inquiry
to be made when he would be ready to go away.*
It was the tempted on which indignation was to be expended. The
trae cause of the Aaolation of law was to go his way in peace.
On the heels of this information came a report from the police depart-
ment tbat twenty men had been discharged from the vessel since her
arrival in port.
If this report was correct, then her crew, according to the report of
Captain Payne, must have been reduced to fifty men.
On such a basis she could scarcely have ventured on any hostile
cruise. It seems tolerably plain that the object of supplying this defi-
ciency was kept in view from the first.
The detective proceeded to state that the c£^ptain intended to ship
forty hands, to be taken on during the night, and to sign articles when
outside the He^ds. He wanted foreign seamen only ; but, if Englisk
were to be taken, they must assume a foreign name.
Farther information from other sources given on the same day raised
the number of men actually engaged to sixty.
It thus appears that the authorities at Melbourne were, as early as
the 13th, fully apprised of what was the movement of the commander,
and in a situation to adopt energetic measures of prevention, if they
shonld think proper.
cuiBinier connu sons le nom de' Charley'; le dit cnisinier 'Charley' n'6tait pas h
eaiftinier porter des rations k des hommes cach^ dans le gaiUard d'avant, qui vinrent
a l>ord depnis son arrive a Hohsou*s Bay/'
Ce tiSmoignage fat sonmis ans ** law-officers," qui juc^rent la premiere deposition
preuve safi&ante par elle-mdme ponr d^cerner an mandat d'arrdt contre les hommes
eor^l^ et ceci paralt avoir engag6 le conseil, non pas h prendre aiioune mesare eontre
le commandant, mais h ordoner qu'une enqn^te fftt faite pour savoir qaand 11 serait
prtt h partir.
Ce fat sar cenx qni avaient ^t^ s^daits que Tindignation dovait se d^verser ; le y6ri-
table antenr de la viokition de la loi devait s'en aller en paix.
Imm^iatement apr^s ce mandat d'arrdt, vint un rapport dn d^partement de polioe,
^ne vingt hommes avaient qaitt^ le vaissean depuis son arriv^e dans le port.
8i ce rapport ^tait exact, son Equipage aiors, d'apr^s le rapport du oi^itaine Payne,-
doit avoir ^t^ i^dait ii cinqaante hommes.
Sar nne telle hase, il poavait k peine shaven tnrer dans aucune croisi^re hostile.
L'agent de police dit ensulte qae le capitaine se proposa de recrater qnarant^
hommes, qni devaient monter h bord de nait et signer les engagements qaand iis serai-
ent horsdee ** Heads." II ne vonl|bit qae des marins Strangers, mais, s'il fallait prendre
des Anglais, ceax-ci devaient adopter un nom Stranger.
Des renseignements nlt^^riears, d'antres soarces, donnas le m^me joar, ^levaient le
sombre des hommes effectivement engages k soixante.
n paralt ainsi qae les aatorit^ de Melboarne ^taient, d^s le 13, pleinement inform^ea
de ce qae fatsait le commandant, et en ^tat d'adopter des mesares de prevention, si ellea
le jugeaient convenable.
^ British Appeddix, vol. 1, p. 521.
204 ARBITRATION AT GENEVA.
The only measure which appears actually to have been taken was to
issue a warrant against the man Charley.
The officer charged with the warrant proceeded to the steamer ia
which the man was supposed to be. The commander was not on board.
The officer next in charge at once refused to give him any assistance,
and forbid his going over the ship.
The next day he returned, and applied to the commander himself.
That officer is reported to have used these words : " I pledge you my
word of honor, as an officer and a gentleman, that I have not any one
on board, nor hav^e I engaged any one, nor will I while I am here.''
How is this evidence to be reconciled to all the previous testimony,
and the suspicious circumstance mentioned by Captain Payne I
The rest of the evidence of the boarding-officer is quite important,
though not essential to transfer to this paper. The whole is accessible
in the first volume of the Appendix to the British Case. The issue of
the application was, that the commander absolutely refused to let tbe
officer look over the ship for himself. On a second demand of a more
pressing kind, he again refused, and added that ^^ he would fight his
ship rather than allow if^ — a threat as absurd in his then situation as
it was offensive to the authorities of the colony.
The governor in council, on receiving the news of this open defiance of
all recognized authority, at once took notice of it by issuing a prohibi-
tion to all the subjects of the colony of giving further aid or assistance
to the vessel then on the slip, which practically exemplified in an instant
the folly of the insurgent officer's proceeding.
Had the authorities persevered in this course, it is altogether likely
that the commander, Waddell, would have ultimately been compelled to
abandon all his schemes of illegal outfit, and with it perhaps the enter-
prise he was meditating.
Unfortunately, they listened to weaker counsels. They appealed
to the officer to reconsider his determination. The letter containing
this appeal was delivered to him on the evening of the 14th. He an-
La seale meaare qui senible avoir 4i6 prise effectivement fut do ddcerner an mnidat
d'arr6t contre ** Charley."
L'officier char^6 du mandat se rendit au steamer oh. rhomnie 6tait snpposd dtre. Le
commandant n'dtait pas ii bord. L'otficier en charge an-deasoua de lui refusa de ftoite
de lui aider on ancune mani^re, et lui d<$feudit de monter sur le vaisseau.
Le lendemain, il rovint et s'adressa au commandant lui-mAme. On rapporte que cet
offlcier dit ces mots : *^ Jo vous donne ma parole d'honneur d'officier et de gentilhororoe
que ie n'ai personne ^ bord, que jo n'ai eugag6 personue ot que jo u'engagerai personne
pendant quo je serai ici.''
Comment accordor cette preu ve avec tout le t^moignaj^e pri^ciSdeat, et avec lea circon-
stanccs suspectes mentionuee^ par le capitaiue Payne f
Le resto du t^uioifi^nage de l^oincier qui alia s\ bord est tr^s-importantf quoiqu'il ne aoit
pas essentiel de I'introduire ici. On pent trouver le tout dans lo premier volume de Tsp-
pendice du " British case.-' Le rdsultat de la demaude fut que le commandant refasa
absolument de permcttre il Tagent de chorcher sur le vaissi5au par lui-m6me. A nne
seconde demande, d'une nature plus instante, il refusa de nonveau et ajonta: **Qu'il
livrerait bataille plut^t que de le permettre ;" monace aflssi absurde, dans sa situation,
qn'ofiensante en vers les autorit^s de la colon ie.
Lo gouverneur, en conseil, en recovant la nouvelle de ce d6fi ouvert de tonte antorite
reconnue, en prit note de suite, en ^mettant nne defense ilk tous les sujets de la colonic
de donner aucnno aide ou assistance nltcrieure an vaissean, alors sur le ber, ce qai
montrad'une niani^re pratique, en un instant, lafoliedelaconduite dePofficier iosarg^.
Si les autorit^ avaieut per8<Sv<$r6 daus cette manit^re d'agir, il est probable que Itf
commandant Waddell aurait ^t^ entin foTc6 d^abaiidonner tous ses plans d^dquipement
illegal, ot avec cela, peut-dtre, Tentreprise qn'il mdditait.
Malhenreusemcnt, ils prSterent Toreille ^ des conseils plus faibles. lis en appel^rent
h I'officier pour qu'il r^fldchlt sur sa determination. La lettre contenant cette invita-
tion lui fut remise le soir du 14. II y ri^pondit en protestaut contre les obstacles mis
OPINIONS OF MR. ADAMS. 205
swered it, protesting against the obstruction tbns put in his way. The
first sentence is all that is material in this connection. It is in these
words :
"I have to inform liis excellency the governor that the execution of the warrant was
not refused, as no such person as the one therein specified was on board.''
There were two falsehoods in this sentence. The reason assigned
could not explain the fact of the refusal. Scarcely was the letter
placed in the hands of tlie messenger, when the attention of the water-
police was attracted to the fact that four men were leaving the Shenan-
doah in a boat pulled by two watermen. They were headed off and
arrested. And then it was discovered that the man Charley, so posi-
tively alleged not to have been on board, was one of the four.
Yet, strange as it may seem, the fact of this discovery of a clear vio-
lation of the foreign-enlistment act was communicated to the perpe-
trator in a letter which, by way of compensation, announced to him that
the injunction upon British subjects to withhold all aid to his vessel was
thenceforth taken off.
The reason assigned for this change of policy was that, in the situation
of the vessel on the slip, a sudden storm might endanger its safety, and
in that event the authorities would be made responsible for the conse-
quences of their order.
It was a suggestion skillfully made to attain its purpose, and it
.alarmed the governor enough to induce him to withdraw his prohibition.
The reply of the commander is at once fawning, insolent, and untruth-
ful He thanks the governor for his observance of the rights of bellig-
erents, to which he had done everthing to forfeit a claim. He disavows
a knowledge of the fact that the men were there, though it is clearly to
my mind the true reason accounting for his absurd threat to fight
rather than to show the interior of the ship ; and, lastly, he vapors about
the disrespectful and insulting tone used towards him, which he should
take an early opportunity of bringing to the notice of the Kichmond
government.
ainsi sur son chemin. Le premier paragraphe est tout ce qui est utile sous co rapport.
II est coufu en ces termes :
" J'ai & informer sou excellence le gonvernenr que Texdcutiou du niandat d'arrftt n'«
pas 6t6 Tefua6e, parce qu'aucuue personne semhlablo ^ cello qui y dtait sp<$uili6o u'^^tait
a bord."
II y avait denx niensonges dans cette phrase. La raison indiqu<^e ne pouvalt pas
expliquer le fait dn rofus. X peine la lettre 6tait-olle remise en mains du messager que
Vatteution de la police des eaux <^tait attir^e sur le fait que quatre honimes quittaient
le Shenandoah dans uu bateau conduit par deux bateliers. lis furent devanc6s et
arret^s, puis on ddcouvrit que "Charley," si positivement d6cIar<S u'avoir pas 6t6 dk bord,
(^tait un des quatre.
Mais, qaelqu'etrange que cela pnisse paraltre, le fait de cette d^couverte d'une viola-
tioQ mauifeste du foreign-enliBtment act fut communique an coupable dans uue lettre
qui, comme Gompeusation, lui annon^a que rinjouccion faite aux sujets anglais de
Habstenir de donner aide h sou vaisseau ^tait d6sorniais retiree. La raison iudiqn^e
ponr ce changement de politique 6tait que, dans la situation du vaisseau sur le bor-
^'^au, nn orage subit pourrait le mettre eu danger. £t dans ce cas, les autorit^i seraient
rendues responsables des consequences de leur ordre.
C'^tait une suggestion habilemeut pr6seut4e pour atteindro son but, et elle alarma
le gouvernear assez pour ^engager 4 retirer sa defense.
Ila reponse dn commandant est ii la fois basse, insolente et mensong^re. II remeroie
le gonvernenr de son observation des droits des belligdrants, apr^s avoir tout fait pour
perdre le droit d^y pr^tendre. II ddsavoue tonte connaissance du fait que les hommes
y fiussent, qaoiquUl soit clair pour moi que c'cst la vraie raison qui pent expliquer son
absarde menace de livrer bataille plut^t que de montrer Fint^^rieur du vaisseau, et en-
fin il fait le fanfaron sur le ton irrespectueux et insultant employ^ h sou ^^ard, qu'il
saisira la premiere occasion de porter k la connaissance du gouvernement de Kichuiond
206 ABBITKATION AT GENEVA.
Simaltaneoasly with the dispat<ch of this letter^ this officer addresses
to the attorney-general of the colony the following inquiry :
** Be pleased to inform me if the Crown claims the sea to be British wat«r8 three miles
from the Port Philip Head-lights, or from a straight line drawn from Point Lonsdale
and Schanch/'
The audacity of this application to that particular officer is its most
marked characteristic. The purpose of it could scarcely fail to have
been penetrated. It could only have had reference to the possibility of
taking on board of his ship at the nearest point outside of British waters
such men as he had already engaged to enlist with him. Yet the attor-
Bey-general seems not to have been stimulated by it to take any new
precautions. He contented himself with sending an evasive answer
tbatyet clearly betrays his own sense of the nature of the inquiry.
At this moment the captain of the Shenandoah had forfeited all pos-
sible right to respect from the authorities, whether as an officer or as a
man. They were fully informed of the fraud which had entered into
the origin of his undertaking. They were enlightened in regard to his
continuous efforts to violate Her Majesty's laws in their port, and they
were warned that detection in one instance had not availed to deter
him from meditating more. Yet, so far as the papers before us are con-
cerned, these considerations do not seem to have produced any other
effect than a desire to get rid of him as soon as possible by supplying
him with all he asked.
The consequences were no other than could have naturally been ex-
pected. No vigilance had been exercised in preventing the commander's
operations, and the boats which took out the people who had been
enlisted beforehand had it all their own way. There is not a reasonable
doubt that he carried away from Melbourne at least twenty -eight of
these men.
An attempt has been made to draw a parallel between this enlistment
and that supposed to have been made by the commander of the Rear-
sarge at Cork. But it appears to fail in many respects, the most impor>
Simnltan6ment avec Texp^^ition de cette lettre, cet officier adresse k Fattoniey-
general de la colonie la question snivante :
" Ayez la bont^ de m'infornier si la couronne envigace que la nier soit eaux anglaisM
k troiB niilles du pbare de Port Philip Head, on d'une ligue droite tir<Se de Point Lodb-
dale et de Scbancn."
L'andace de cette demande, h cet officier en particnlier, est son trait caract^ristiqiie
le pins marqui^. Le but pouvait h peine manquer d'en dtre compris. £lle ne pouvatt
se rapporter qu'& la po8Hibilit<S de prendre k bord de son vaissean, an point lepluft
procbe^hors des eaux anglaises, autant d'bomnies qu'il en avait engag^ k s'enrOler avec
lui. £t cependant, ^attorney -general ne senible pas avoir 6t6 pouss^ par cela h pren-
dre ancune nouvelle precaution. II se contenta d'euvoyer une r^ponse Evasive qui
trnbit pourtant clairement son propre sentiment sur la nature de la demande.
A ce moment, le capitaine du Shenandoah avait perdu tout droit iiossible an respect
des autoritds, soit comme officier, soit comme homme. Elles etaient pleineoient
inform€es de la frande qui s*6tait introduite dans I'origine de son entreprise. Elles
etaient edair^es sur ses efforts continus pour violer les lois de sa Majesty dans lear
port^ et elles dtaient averties que, surpris une fois, il ne s'^tait pas abstenu d*eu
m^diter davantage. Mais, autant que les documents places devant nous s'y rapportent,
ces considerations ne sembleut pas avoir produit d^autre eifet qu'nu d6sir d'etre
debarraBse de lui le plus t/^t possible, en lui ioumissant tout ce qu'il demandait. I^»
consequences ne furent pas antres que celles que Von anrait pn naturellement attendre*
Aucnne vigilance n'avait ete exercee pour emp^cher les operations da commandant, et
les bateaux qui emmen^rent les bommes enrdies anparavant enrent le cheniin libre. II
n'y a pas de doute raisounable qn^ils emmeu^reut de Melbourne au moius vingt-hoit
de ces bommes.
On a essay e de tirer nn parallMe entre cet enrOlement et celni que Pon suppose avoir
ete fait par le commandant du Kearsarge k Cork. Mais il semble pecher sur plusicais*
OPINIONS OF MR. ADAMS. 207
tant of which is this, that Captain Wiiislow, after he got out of British
waters, discovered the men, and took the trouble to bring them back
to Cork. The other never thought of reparation for his offense.
His vessel was one of the swiftest in sailing known in the records of
seamanship, and therefore stood in little need of coal. The supply she
had brought unexhausted to the port was large. Yet she obtained as
much more as she could carry. No questions seem to have been asked
as to the nearest port of destination. So far as I can gather from the
evidence, it appears that this vessel was completely supplied at Mel-
bourne with all she wanted for a cruise of deiM*edation continued for
many months. And, worst of all, she obtained at this port a comple-
ment of her crew, without which she could have done nothing.
An attempt has been made to weaken the force of the testimony given
by Temple on this matter. It does not seem to have materially shaken
the belief in it of Sir C. H. Darling, the governor, whose only fault, so
far as I have been able to observe, was that of listening too much to
the weak counsels of parties sympathizing more than was becoming
with the cause of these malefactors. When the deposition was sul^
mitted by Her Majesty's government to his consideration in 1866, he
explained some of the incidents referred to, without contesting the truth
of any. But his most significant comment was the last, which is in
these words :
"Having expressed to yoa in ray dispatches, to which you refer, my belief that Cap-
tain Waddell had, notwithstanding his honorable protestations, flagrantly violated the
neatrality he was bound to observe in respect to the shipment of British citizens to
serve on board his vessel, I have read without surprise, though witli deep regret, the
Wng list of names furnished by Mr. Temple, which completely proves that this belief
was justly founded/'
The dispatches referred to in this extract I have not been able to
discover among the papers presented to us on the part of Great Britain.
They are not necessary, however, to prove how utterly fruitless were
the attempts, steadily persevered in to the last, to bolster up the
points, dont le plus important est que le capitaine Winslow, apr^ 6tre sorti des eaux
anglaises, d^couvrit les hommes et prit la peine de les reoonduire ^ Cork. L'autre ne
penaa Jamais ii faire reparation pour son offense.
Son vaiaseau €tait un des plus rapides voiliers connus dans les annales de la marine,
et par cons^nent n'avait besoin que de peu de charbon. La provision qn*il avait
apport^ in^puis^^e dans le port ^tait grande, et cependant il en obtint autant qn'il
poavait en porter. Nulle question ne semble Ini avoir 6te faite sur le plus prochain
port de destination. Autant que je puis en juger par les prenves, il paralt que co vais>
seao fnt compl^tement approvisionnd ^ Melbourne de tout ce dont il avait besoin pour
Qoe croisifere de depredations contiuuee pendant plusieurs mois. Et, le pire de tout, il
obtint de ce port un complement de son equipage, sans lequel il n'aurait rien pu £ftire.
On a fait une tentative pour affaiblir la force de ce temoignage. Elle ne paralt pas
avoir beaucoup ebranie la con fiance <^u'y ajoutait Sir Charles U. Darling, le gonvemeur,
doDt la senle faute, autant que J'ai ete k mdme de le remarqner, fut de prdter trop
PoreiUe aux faibles conseils de personnes sympathisant plus qu'il n'etait convenable
aveo la cause de ces malfaiteurs. Lorsque la deposition de Temple fut soumise h son
examen, en 1866, il expliqua qnelques-uns des incidents qui s'y rapportaient, sans con-
tester la verite d'ancun d'eux. Mais sa remarque la plus significative fat la demi^re,
qui est congne en ces termes :
** Vons ayant exprime, dans les depSches auxquellea vons faites allusion, ma convic-
tion que le capitaine Waddell avait, malgre ses honorables protestations, vioie d'une
Bianiere flagrante la neutralite quMl etait tenu d^observer, par renr61ement de citoyens
aiiglais pour servir k bord de son vaisseau, j'ai lu sans surprise, mais avec un profond
regret, la longne liste de noms fonrnie par M. Temple, qui prouve pleinement que cette
coQvietion etait bien fondee.^
Je n'ai pas pn decouvrir, parmi les documents qui nous soni presentes de la part de
a Grande-Bretagne, les dep^ches anxquelles il est fait allusion dans ce passage. Ellen
ne aont cependant pas necessaires pour prouver com bien les tentatives faites avec une
208 ARBITRATION AT GENEVA.
character of the insurgent commander for veracity. On the other band,
the efibrt was great, and successful at the time, to destroy the credit
of Temple's deposition. Yet, on a calm comparison of the evidence of
the two, with testimony received from without, I am convinced that
Temple was far the most worthy of belief.
In truth, Her Majesty's government had entered upon a wrong path
at the outset, in recognizing the original fraud, and their adherence to
it only complicated the obstacles to extrication. For the depredations
on the hardy and innocent seamen earning an honest living in the
most hazardous of all enterprises on the ocean continued long after the
last spark of belligerent pretensions had been extinguished in America.
It seems to me that ller Majesty's government and their authorities
of Melbourne are clearly to be held responsible. No such cruise could
have been made without the assistance derived from Melbourne as a
base of operations. Instead of attempting to counteract the strong cur-
rent of popular sympathy prevailing in all classes in that settlement,
the authorities either weakly yielded to it, or themselves co-operated
with it, at least so far as could be done by sluggish indifference.
Hence, it is my conclusion that, from the time of the departure of the
Shenandoah from Melbourne, the government of Great Britain, having
failed to fulfill the obligations of the second rule specified for the gov-
vernment of the arbitrators under the provisions of the Vlth articleof the
treaty of Washington, has rendered itself liable for all the damages to
the United States subsequently incurred thereby.
IX. — THE SUMTER.
In the second part of the volume called the Case, submitted to us on
the part of Her Majesty's government, on the seventh page
I find a paragraph in the following words :
" In and Boon after the month of May, 1861, a number of armed ships, mostly of small
per86vdrance continuelle jiisqu'{\ la fin, d*appuyer le caracti^c du commandant insnrgd
qimtit ji la T<^racit6, <^t-aient tout h fait sans succi^s. Do Tantre c6t.<^, Teffort ponr
d^truire le cr6dit de la disposition de Temple fut grand, et r^ussit pour le momedt.
Copendant une comparaison calme des preuvcs fournies par ces deux liommes arec la
tdmoignage re^u du dehors me convainc que Temple <^tait de bcaueoup le plus digne de
foi.
En vi?rit6, le gouvernement de sa Majesty avait pris un mauvals chemin h rorigine
en reconnaissant la fraude premiere, et Padh^^sion qu'il y donna ne fit que compliqaer
les obstacles quMl rencontra pour en sortir. Pour les depredations commises j\ I*«5gard
des hardis et innocents marins, gagnant honndtement leur vie dans la plus hasardense
do toutes les entreprises sur l^c6an, et continu^es longtemps apr6s que la dorni^re
^tincelle du droit de belligdrant avait 6t6 dteinte on Ara^rique, il me semble quele
gouvernement de sa Majesty et ses autorit<5s de Melbourne doivent ^tre tenns netteineut
responsables. Nulle course semblable n'eftt pu Hre faite sans le secours tir6 do Mel-
bourne comme base d'opdrations. Au lieu d'essayer de r^agir contre le fort courant de
sympathie populaire dominant dans toutes les classes de cette colonie, les autoritds on
bien y c6d6rent faiblement, ou bien y coop6r^rent, au moius autant qu'on ponvait le
faire, par uue molle iudilfdrence.
D^s lors, ma conclusion est quo, depuis T^Spoque du depart du Shenandoah de Mel-
bourne, le gouvernement de la Grande-Bretagne, ayant udglig6 de remplir robligation
de la seconde r6gle sp<Scifi<^e pour la conduite des arbitres selon I'article 6 du traits de
Washington, s'est rendu respousable de tons les dommages oncourus subs^quemment ^
cause de cette n6gKgence par le commerce des £tats-Unis.
T.K SUMTER.
Dans la seconde partie du volume appel6 le "Case," qui nous est soumis de la part
du gouvernement de sa Majesty, k la page 7, je trouve un paragraphe cou^u dans le«
termes suivants :
" Pendant et peu de temps apr^s le mois de mai 1861, plnsieurs b&timents arm^s,
OPINIONS OF MR. ADAMS. 209
toiiuap-N were fitted ont iu and scut to sea from portH in tliu Cuufudorato States, and a
coDsiderabie namber of captures were made by them. Some of these were com mis-
Moned as public Bhii)8of war of the Coufederate States, and commanded by officers in the
naval service of the confederacy ; others as private ships of war or privateers. Among
the armed vessels which were so fitted ont and made prizes were the Calhoun, a steamer
of 1,000 tons, sent to sea in May, 1861, the Jeff. Davis, Savannah, Saint Nicholas, Wins-
low, and York. More than twenty prizes were made by these vessels. The Sumter
I to which reference will be made hereafter) went to sea in June, 1861 ; the Sallie and
Nashville in October, 1861 ; the Echo in 1862 ; the Retribution and Boston in 1863 ; the
Chicliamanga, Olustee, and Tallahassee iu 1864. These vessels are stated to have
taken from sixty to seventy prizes."
If by tbis grave report it was iuteuded to 6stablisb tbattbe insurgent
Americans were in 1861 entitled in any way to be considered as a bel-
ligerent ou the ocean, the motive can only be explained by presuming
either an absence of all ac^iuaintance with the actual condition of the
iDsargent States at that time or deliberate misrepresentation. I pre-
fer to adopt the earlier construction.
In ]>oiut of fact, it is clearly shown in these papers, as well as
from the past condition of that region of coast ever since the time
of its first settlement, that it has never possessed any commerce or navi-
^tion of its own. Whatever might have been the list presented, it
could contain only such vesirels as might accidentally have been found
in its ports at the moment of the insurrection, belonging to owners
outside of the jurisdiction. That all such vessels were at once seized,
and made for a short period to play a part for which they were utterly
unfitted, is strictly true. Yet, so far from presenting any just ground
for recognizing these people as a maritime belligerent, all the facts tend
the more to convince me that to all intents and jjurposes Her Majesty's
government might, with quite as much justice, recognize in any similar
emergency these cantons of Switzerland as such. Be this as it may, I
am reaily to admit there was for a short time a slight appearance of a
navsil force that might deceive strangers. Out of the number of vessels
(lontia plnpart <^l4iient de faible tonnaj^e, fnrent 0(iiiip<^s et mis hors dcs ports situdn
dans les ^tats-confcdercs ; ils iirent uu uoiubre cousidi^rable de captures. l>e ces bAti-
mentfi, lea nns, commandos par des otticiers an service naval de la confi^d^ration,
re^^nrent la commission de vaisseaux de guerre des ctats-confdddrds, les antres celle de
vaiHseaux de giierre prives ou de corsaires. Au nombre des vaisseaux armds en gnerre
|iui fureut <^quip<Ss de la sorte et ciui fireut des prises, so trouvaieut le ('alhoun, steamer
jaugeant plus de mille tonneaux, qui prit la mer au mois de mai 1^61, le Jelferson
Davis, le Savannah, le Ssiiut Nicliolas, le Winslow et le York. Plus de viugt prises
«'churent k ces navires. Le Sumter (dont il sera fait mention plus loin) prit la mer en
join 1S61; le SaUie et le Nashville, eu octobre 18H1 ; TEcho, en 1862; la Retribution et
Ir Boston, en 1864; le Chickamauga, rOlust^e et le Tallahassee, eu l>*5(i4. Ces vaisseaux
«uiraicnt fait, dit-on, de soixante a soixante-dix itrises."
Si par ce rapport grave on avait riiiteution d*<^tablir que les insiirges am<^ricaius
avaieut droit en 1861, eu aucuue maniere, si c^tre cousid^r^M comme belligdrants sur
i'(K'<^an, la raison n'en pent etre expliquee ciu'eu supposant roelle une abseuce de toute
1 oDiiaissance de hi condition actuelle des ^Cats iusurgds a cette cpoque, soit uu fanx
rapport r«5flechi. Je pr^tere adopter h\ premiere interpr<?tation. En etfet, il est claire-
mrut d<^montro clans ces documeuts, atissi bieu que par la condition aut<^rieure de cett»^
K'gion maritime, qu'elle n'a jamais {Hm^cdi^, depuis rcSpotpie de sa premiere colouisation,
auciui commerce ni aucuue navigation propre. Quel qu'ait pu otre le rAle des navires
I'rc'sentes. il ne pouvait contenir que des vaisseaux que i'on pouvait avoir trouv^s acci-
<lent4>llement dans les ports au moment de Tiusurrectiou, appartenant a des propn^-
taires I'U dehora de sa juridiction. Que tons ces vaisseaux fureut saisis en meme
ipuqw et qn'ou leur lit pendant une courtc pi^riode joucr uu rAlc pour leipiel ils etaieut
Timt-a-fait impropres, est nn fait strictenieut vrai. Mais loin dn fuurnir nucun motif
raiiu)nnable pour reconnaltre ces gens comme bellig<5raut« maritimes, ces faits tendcnt
>urtout a me convaincro qu'a tons dgards le gouvertiement de sa JVlajesie aurait pu,
avec tont autant de justice, reconnaltre comme tels, dans des circoustauces analogues,
!»*.'< cantons de la Suisse. Quoi ciu'il eu soit, je suis prAfc a admettre qu'il y cut
pendant quelqne temps line Idgcre apparence d'uiie force luivale <|ui pouvait trouiper
•Ifs i'traujrers nial inf<»rm<^». Au nombre des vaisseaux iudiquos daus le passage que
14 b
210 ARBITRATION AT GENEVA.
arrayed in the passage I have quoted is the steamer Sumter, a case now
presented to our consideratii n as founding a claim for damages from
Her Majesty's government by that of the United States.
This was a steamer built in no sense for a war-vessel. She had beeu
employed as a packet between New Orleans and the Havana, and thouj^h
most likely to have belonged to private proprietors in New York, may
poswibly have had some in Imcw Orleans. I am willing to concede the
bent^fitof the doubt. At all events, she was seized by the insurgent
government, fitted np in haste with the few guns that she could bear,
and pui^hed through the blbckatle at the mouth of the Mississippi to the
high sea. This was on the 30th of June, 18Gl. After making some
prizes, and touching at various ports belonging to other powers, shi» at
1, St made lier ajipt^aiance in a liarbor of Her Majesty's island of Trin-
idad. This was on the 30th of July. Here she was recognized in due
form, was supplied with a new main-yard, provisions, and eighty tons
of coal. She next api)eared at Paramaribo, in Dutch Guiana, nineteen
days after sailing from Trinitlad, and there received an additional supply
of coals. From thence she juoceeded to various i)orts of other my-
ereign powers, until at last she found her w^ay to Her Majesty's i>urt of
Gibraltar.
This experience had completely established the fact that in her then
condition she was utterly unfitted for her undertaking. The ett'orts to
get her refitted had failed ; and although there was a long delay i)er-
mitted at Gibraltar — much longer, indeed, than seems altogether justi-
fiai>le — the end of it was that she was disarmed, dismantled, sent to
Liverpool, ami never afterward tried as a cruiser. The truth probably
was that it was found cheaper to build eflicient vessels in Great Britain,
which this one never could have been.
It appears that eleven of her prizes were made before reaching Trin-
idad, where she coaled. None were made between Trinidad and Para-
maribo, and only five afterward.
If Her Majesty's government had been called to exercise due vigilance
j'ai transcrit, le steamer Samt^r est un cms prdsent^ actuellemeut h notre exaraeo
coiniiie Hervunt de base A, iiiiu K^flauiation eu domuiages aupr^s dn ^oiiveniemeut do
sa MajiJKt^ par ce.liii des J^tats-Uiiis.
Le Sumter nVtait eu auciiu Bens an steamer coiiRtrnit pour ^tre vaisseau de j»nenjp.
I] avail ^1 6 employ^ comme paquebot eutre la NouveUe-Orleauset la Havaiie,et quoiqu'il
ait appartenu Trc8vrai»emlilableiiient & des propridtaires priv^n & New York, il est ptw-
Bible quMl en ait eu & la Nouvelle-0r}^an8. Je suin diNpos^ 5. accorder le ben<^tice dn
doutf. Quoi qu'il en soit, 11 fut saisi par le soi-disunt gouveniement insnrg^, 6qnip^ ^
la lid,te du pen de canons qu^il pouvait porfer et fni^^a 1« bli>cns k Peniiioucbareda
Mimissippi pour se ren<lre en haute mer. C'^tait le MO juin 1S(51. Apr^s avoir fait
quelques prises et toncb6 divers ports appartenant k d'autres puissances, il tit enfin son
apparition <lans un port <le Tile de sa Mujt-std la Trinity. C'^tait le 30 juillet. 11 v fnt
reconnu eu dfte forme, fut pourvu d'un« nouvelle grande vergue, de provisions et de
quatre-viugts tonnes de cbarbon. It apparut euHUire k Paramaribo, daus la Giiyane
hollandaise, dix-neuf jours apr^s avoir quitte la Tritiii^, et \k il re^ut nu nouveau sub-
side de cbarbon. D'ici il se rendit a dia'<5renis ports d'autres puissances soaveraim'ft
jusqn'^ ce qu'eiifin il arriva k Gibraltar, p<irt de sa Majesty.
Cette exp(^rience avait compldtenient dtabli le fait que dans sa condition d'alore il
^tait eniierement imjiropre a son entreprise. Les efforts pour le radouber avaient
dubon<5. et quoiqne un Icmg d6lai lui eiit 6t6 accord^ k Gibraltar, beaucoup plus long
en ettot-qu'il nesemblut ui^cessaire, il fut ouliu dd<)ariu6, demanteld, envoys k Liverpool,
et ue fut pas employ^ plus tard comme croisenr. La verity ^tait probablenieut quo
J'on trouva in«411eur nuirch6 do construire des vaisseaux plus etUcaiJes en^ Augleterre.
11 semble que onze de ses prises t'ureut faites avant d'att-eiudre la TriiJt*^, ofi il fit du
chaibon. 11 u'eu lit aucuue eutre la Trinitd et Paramaribo, et seuUniisut ciuq plus
ta/d.
Si le goavemement de sa.Majest<f* avait 6\4 appel^ a exercer dftf vigilance pour em-
OPINIONS OP MR. ADAMS. 211
to prevent tbe fitting-ont, arming,* or equipping this vessel, it might
perhaps have been liable, but it is clear it had no opportunity. Such
a8 it was, the fact is well established that the entire work was done at
New Orleans.
Neither was it in a way to permit this vessel to make use of its ports
or waters as the base of n:ival operttions, for the plain reason, if there
were no other, that its career so soon terminated in the second of the
only two ports she visited.
The only resemblance tosnch a thing was the supply of coals received
at Trinidad. But that was exlMUsted, without an oppiirtniiity of doing
damage, before reacliing the port of another sovereign, and nothing was
ever received from British sources afterwards All the sui>plies ob-
tained with that exception came from ports belonging to other powers.
I fail, therefore, to see wherein Her M;ijesty's government has omitted
to fulfill any duty presented in this case, for 1 cannot discover what duty
she was called to fullill.
It is very true that, at the moment, this proceeding of the recogni-
tion of the Sumter at Trinidad was regarded by the Government of the
United States as an unfriendly act, and much remonstrance was made
against it. Whether this was made with or without just found^ition, it
does not seem necessary here to consiiler. The question now is solely
of damages incurred by failure to fulfill certain specitied duties. 1 can
discover no damages, and very trifling duty.
But there is one more question in connection with the history of this
vessel that demands consideration. It is alleged that she was suffered
to remain an undue length of time in the port of Gibraltar, and that a
fraudulent sale was recognized which enabled the insurgents to trans-
fer the vesiiel to Liverpool, and use her again, under a British register, as
atrans|)ort for their cause.
The answer to this is, that her detention at Gibraltar, however it may
be considered, was certainly productive of no damage, while her pres-
ence on the ocean might have been. And 'as to the fraudulent sale,
p^cber raiTan<;eiiient, rarmetaeut oii r^qntpeineiit do ce vaisscaii, il ponrrait. pent.-6tre
avoir it4 xvsponMuble, niais il est clair qu'il n'eii eiit pas rocciuiou. Tel qu'il tut, il est
bien 6tabli que Touvraf^e entier fiit fait ii la NoiivelleOrl^ans.
U ue fut paa uon plus eii positiou <le peniiettre k ce vaissean de faire n»a|;e do ses
ports on de ses eaiiK coiniue base d\)p6ratioii8 iiavaleM, par la raison i^videiire, mMI fi'y
en ent pan d'autres, que sa carri6re se teriuiua si t6tdauti le tiecuud des deux seuU portH
qaM viaita.
Le M'qI fait qui ressemble & uiie semblable permis^^ion fut le subside de cbarbon
rp^a 4 la TrinitiS. Mais celui-ci fut <5pui8^ iuiuh qu'il ait eu une occasinu de iiuire avant
d'urteiudre le port d'uu autre souveraiu, et ensinte il ue reQUt plus jauiain rieu do
iMiurc«^ an;;laim;s. Ttuis lea autr»*8 nubsides qit'il obtiiit, k I'exceptiuu de celui-14, pro-
veiiaient de ports apparteuaut k (rautrcs puiMsances.
Je ue puis douc voir en quoilegouvt'ruenieufdfsa Majesty a n6}rli^6de reiupliraucun
devoir prescrit danscH CU'4, car je ne piiisd^couvnr quel devoir il ^laitappeld k reuiplir.
n eit bien vrai qu*au uionu'Ut ni^uie ce pnit'^d^ de la recoiiuaissauce du Siiuiter k la
Trinity fut r»*gard<S par le Gouvtrueuu'Ut des £rats-Unis coniuie uu acte peu auiical, et
qtrils y tireut beaucou)) de rfuiontrauces. 8i C/eci a 6t6 fait avec de jusfes raisous ou
nnii, il ne ine senible pas u6 essaire dt^ Texaniiuer ici. LaqncMtiou acruelle est uuique-
Dietit de dounna;;es euronrus par la u6gli}^euce k reuiplir certai us devoirs sp^uitids. Jo
Uf pniM d^Miuvrir aucuu dcmnnuge et qu'uu ti^s-l^&ffr devoir.
Mais il y a une autre question eu ra|>port avec Tbistoire de ce vaissoau, qui deuiande
^ ^.tre examinee. Ou allegue qu%>u lui permit de denieurer daus le porr de Gibraltar
aii-deI4 dn temps l^^al et qu^iue veute frauduleuse fut reconuue qui permit aux iu-
sorg6i de traubfi^rer le vaisseau k Liverpool et de IVmployer de uouveuu sous registre
anjrlaiH iMmiuie tran8|iort )»our la chush des iusurg^s.
La r^|i«inse k ceei e>t que non s^jour si Gibraltar, de qnelque fa^on quo Ton puisso lo
couMid^rer, ue fut ceriaiueiuriit la c.iuse d\iueuu douituage, taudis quf sa presence sur
I'oc^an aurait pn I'etre. £t qnaut k la vente fraudnleuse, le vuissean ^tait expos^ k
212 ARBITRATION AT GENEVA.
the vessel was open to capture ia her defenceless state, and it was con-
ceded that no reclamation could have been made for it. So likewise
she was open to capture in her latest capacity as a transport. In
neither case does Her Majesty's government appear to me to have in-
curred any responsibility undl^r the three rules of the treaty which can
be estimated in damages.
Of just such a character as this one are other vessels presented so
gravely in the extract which I have made from the British case at the
outset. These are the wretched rags over which Her Majesty's minis
ters condescended to throw the mantle of a belligerent. This they had
an unquestionable right to do. Having done so, it is not possible for
me to reach any other decision in the present case. At the same time, it
may be remarked that it is made clear from these papers that at no time
did this belligerent ever send to sea during the struggle a single war-
vessel built within the limits of the territory it temporarily controlled.
X. — THE NASHVILLE.
Tbis appears to be another instance of a seizure of a steamer con-
structed for a packet to run between New York and Charleston,
in South Carolina, and an attemi)t to turn her into a vessel
of war by putting two light guns upon her, and the necessary ammuni-
tion to frighten unarmed merchant-ships.
In this state she received the requisite officers, and on the 26th of Au-
gust, having run the blockade of Charleston, made her way to the port
of Saint George, in the island of Bermuda, on the 30th, in the guise of
a war- vessel. In order to get safely out of Charleston Harbor, she had
been constrained to go light, in consequence of which she stood in need
of considerable supplies of coal at Saint George, to enable her to effect
her contemplated passage to Southampton. She obtained between 4(K>
and 500 tons from private sources.
Her stay at this jdace must have been from the 30th of August to the
4th of November, when she started for Southampton. A stay of sixty-
cfcre pris, dans I'inipossibiUtd on il 6tsi[t de so di^fcudre, et Ton reconnnt qu^l n^y avait
poiDt de reclamation a faire h cot cgard. II <5tait c^alemeut expos^^ a dtru pris daus su
derniere coudition do transport. Ni dans uii ca.^ ni dans Tautre le gonvoruoment de su
M^,jest<5 ue me semble avoir eucoiirn aucnne resx^ousabilit^, suivant les troit} regies du
traitd, qui puisse (Hve estimdu en dom mages.
Du ni6nie caractcTe que celui-ci sont les autres vaisseanx prdsenw^s si scrieusement
dans Textrait quej'ai fait du ** British case " au commencement. Ce sont les ml845^abU>^
haillons sur lesquels les ministre^i de sa Majesty out bien voulu jeter le manteau d<'
bellig<^rant. lis avaient uu droit incontestable i\Ie faire. L'ayant fait, 11 ne m'est pas
X»os8ible de decider autrement dans le csis prdsent. £n mCme temps, on pourrait bien
remarquer quMl ressort clairement de ees documents qu'ilt aucune <Spoque ce bellig^raot
ne mit en nier pendant le confiit un seul vaisscau de guerre construil dans les liwites
du tcrritoire snr Irquel il exer^a pour le couiison coutr61e.
I.E NASHVIU.E.
Coci parait etro un autre exemplo d*nne saisie d'un steamer coustruit pour servir
comme paquebot entro New York et Charleston dans la Caroline du Sud, et une aatn*
tentative de le transformer en vaisscau do guerre, en y mettant deux Idgers canons et
les munitions nt^cessaires pour dpouvanter les vaisseaux marchauds uon-arm6s.
Daus cet dtat il regut les ofUcers requis, et le 20 avril, ayant £otc6 le blocus de Cbarle^-
ton, se rendit au port de St.-Georges, dans Vile de Bermude, le 30, comme vaisseau di:
guerre. Atin de sortir en sdcurit6 du port dc Charleston, il avait 6t6 obligd d'aller sau^
charge, et en cons<5quence il cut besoiu de subsides considerables de ch^rbon a St.-
George pour Otre en etat d^effectner son passage projet<5 h, Southamx)ton. II eu obtint
entre quatrc et cinq cents tonnes.
Son sdjour dans ce port doit avuii* OXv du 30 aofit au 4 novenibro, oh il partit p<»"i'
.Southampton. Tn H<^jour dc soixautf-Hix joiirM accordo a cet endroit, ajontc s\ ce graii'l
OPINIONS OF MK. ADAMS. 213
six (lays permitted ut this place, in counection with tbe larg:e supply of
coal, indicate an extremely liberal construction of tbe civility duo to
such a vessel at the outset of a struggle like that in America.
At the same time it should be observed that Her Majesty's govern-
ment had not yet found time to mature the necessary regulations to be
observe<l in her remoter dominions, in regard to the stay of, and the sup-
l)lies to be furnished to, tbe vossels of the contending parties when touch-
iDg at her ports.
In her trip across the ocean the Nashville met and destroyed one
merchant-vessel of the United States — the Harvey Birch. After leav-
ing Southampton, she stopped again at Bermuda, where she received 150
tous of coal, which enabled her to return home. On her way she seems
to have destroyed one schooner. It is to be inferred that her utter un-
litness for the business to which she had been put had been clearly
proved, and she was laid aside.
It is contended that the reception which this vessel met with at vari-
ous ports of Her Majesty's kingdom, and the abundant supplies of coal
received by her, are suflBciently proved to bring her within the purview
of the second rule specified in the treaty of Washington for the guid-
auce of the arbitrators.
But, in order to establish this claim, it seems to me necessary to con-
sider the question of intent on the part of the authorities, as well as
that of negligence.
From the evidence furnished in the papers before us in regard to these
two points, I confess that I cannot gather sufficient materials to enable
me to decide against Her ^lajesty's Government on either of them. At
the outset of the struggle, and before the receipt of clear directions to
regulate their conduct, it might very well happen that the authorities
iiuthe remote dependencies would make mistakes of judgment in per-
mitting supplies, without meaning to be partial to one side more than
to another. I have no reason to snsp.ect that just the same measure
would not then have been granted to any vessel of the United States.
A few tons more or less of coal can scarcely be called convincing proof
sabside de cfaarbon, iuiliqno une intcrprdtatioD extrdmement libdrale de la civility dCle ii
nn tel yaisseau, aa commeQcemcnt d'lin conflit tel que celai qui avail <5clat6 on Amdriquo.
En m^rne temps, il faut rcmarquer que le ^ouyeraement de sa Majest^^ n'avait pas
("Dcore tronvd le temps de mdrir les regies udcessaires i\ observer dans ces dtats 61oign<^8,
«iaant au sdjour et aux subsides ii accorder aux vaisseaux des deux parties on contiit
'ini toucheraieut leurs ports.
Dans sa course ^ travers I'oc^^an, le Nashville rencontra et dctruisit nn vaisseau
marcband des fitats-Unis, le Harvey Birch. Apres avoir quitt<> Southampton, il toucha
(le noaveau i\ Bermude, oti il re^ut cent cinquante tonnes de charbon, ce ([ui Ini permit
(u* retonrner chez lui. Dans sa route, il semble avoir d<^truit nn schooner. On pent
croire quo son incapacity comiiKite, pour le rOle qu'on lui avait fait jouer, avait eto
riairemcnt prouvde, et il fut mis de c6t6.
On allegue que Paccneil que re^ut ce vaisseau dans diffdronts ports du royaunie de sa
Mnjestd et les subsides abondants de charbon qu'il obtint sont deiuontrrs suffisants
\M)i\T le placer sous la seconde regie spdcilide dans le traito de Washington commo
;;iiidc ponr les arbitres.
Mais afin dVtablir cello pretention, il me semble ndcessaire dVxaniincr la question
•lo manvaise intention de la pai't des autorilds anssi bien que cello de n<^gligonce.
Par les preuves fournies dans les documents places devant nous quant i\ cos deux
points, j'avouo que jo no puis rasseuibler des matcriaux sufiisants pour mo pcrmettre
<le decider contro le gouverncraent do sa Majeste sur aucun des deny. Au commence-
rat*nt du conflit, et avant la r<^ception de directions claires pour rcgler lenr conduite, il
lK)Uvait trt»«-bien arriver que dans les possessions ^^loign^es les autorit<^s fissent des
••rreurs de jngement» en accordant des subsides sans penser a i^tre parlialcs pour un
parti plutAt que pour rautre.- Je n'al nulle raison de soupconnor «iu'on n'eftt pas alors
accords exactement la nu^nio niesure i\ un vaisseau des l^:tats-Unis. (^uelques tonnes
•lo charbon de plus ou do raoins pen vent a peine etro appel<^es des preuves couvain-
214 ARBITRATION AT GENEVA.
•
of inalicioiis intent. From my observation of the general course of
Govern(>r Onl, I fail to gather any clear traces of a disposition to be
otherwise than impartial in that officer.
With respect to the stay of the Nashville at Southampton, and her
supplies received there, I do not find that the case, was essentially dif-
ferent from that of the United States steamer the Tuscarora, which was
at that port at the same time.
Last of all, I entertain very serious doubts whether this vessel was
ever intended, by those who fitted her out, fur the purpose of cruising
as a depredator on the ocean. Certainly, her lon^i: period of utter inac-
tion at the only port where she stopped, and her straight ctmrse to
Southampton and back, do not at all indicate it. Even the two cap-
tures which she actually made seem to have been vessels she chanced
to meet on her track, which she could destroy without the slightest de-
viation. The governor of St. George's seems to have been convinced
that the object of the voyage was connected with the establishment of
diplomatic relations in Europe, and procuring naval supplies and stores.
At one time it was intend^d to bring out Messrs. Mason and Slidell,
and it actually did have on board Colonel Peyton, supposed to be charged
i^'ith a mission of the same kind.
However this may be, I fail to find solid ground upon which to base,
in this case, any charge either ot intention or negligence against Her
Majesty's Government under the terms of the treaty of Washington.
XI. — THE CIIICKAMAI'GA.
On or about the first week in March, 1864, a steamer called the Edith,
which had been built within the kingdom of Great Britain
for the purpose of running the blockade of the insurgent
ports in the United States, sailed from London. She appears to have
been one of a number constructed under a joint ownership of the insur-
gent authorities in the United States and certain commercial houses in
cantcs (Viiitcntion maliciense. Dans mon examen de la coudaite g<^n6rale da gonver-
nenr Ord, je no puis rociuMllir ancnne trace claire d'uue disposition qui ait dt^ autre
cboHe que d'otro impartial cbez cet otficier.
Qnaut au s<^jour dn NasliviUe si Sunt Hampton et aux snbsidcs qu^il y reont, je ne
trouTe pas que le cas fAt essentielleinent different, de celai du steamer des Ktats-Uoid
Tuscarora, que 6fait dans ce port h la nidme 6poqne.
Entin, j'ai de tr^s-j^raudn dontes si ce vainseati fftt jamais destin6 par cenx qai
IVquiperent h croiser comme corsaire snr Poc^^^an. Certiiiiiement', sa lon>;iie p^riode de
complete inaction dans le seni port nit il s'arrdta et sa course directe aller et rettiur ue
I'indiqnent pas du tout. M^me Ics deux prises qu'il Ht effectivement sem blent avoir
6X6 des vaisseaux qu*il rencontra par hasard sur Ha route, et quMl put ddtruire saus la
plus Idg^re deviation. Le gfmverneur de St.-Oeorge semble avoir 6t6 convaincu qnele
but du vo,vage dtait en rapport aveo I'drablisaeineut de relations diplomatiqnes ea
£urope et de procurer des subsides uavals et des fournitures uiilitaires. Pendant nu
moment on eut I'intention de conduire MM. Mmsoo et Slidell en Kuro|»e, et, effective-
ment, il y avait & bord le colonel Peyton, que Van supposait 6tre cbarg6 d'une- mission
de la nidnie nature.
Qufii qn'il en soit, jene puis tronver de rni. sons sol ides sur lesqnelles baser daos ce
ons aucune occupation dMntention on de ni^^li^ence eootre le gouvernemeut de sa
MajcRt6, d'apr^H les terniea du trait<S de Wasbinglou.
LE CniCKAMAUGA.
La premiere semaine de mars 1864, on h pen pr^s, nn steamer appel6*r£ditb,, qni
avait 6t6 coustruit dans le royaume de la Gninde-Hretagne dans le but d« forc*erle
blocDB des ports insureds aux £tats-lJnis, paitit de Ltuidres. II semble avoir ^t6na
des vaisseanx construits comme propri<^t<$ commune des autoritds insurg^es anx £tats-
Unis et de quelqnes maisous do commerce de la Grande-Bretagne. Comme tel il
OPIMOXS OF MR. ADAMS, 215
•
Great Britaiu. As such, sbe made her way sacceasfully into the port
ot'WihningtOD,Jii North Carolina. It being: ascertained by experiment
that she was a fast and stanch vessel, it was then determined bv the
insargcut authorities to put three guns upon her, with the necessary
equipment, and transform her into a regular cruiser. As such she
claimed to be recognized at Bermuda on tiie 7th November. Here her
coiDiuauder applied for leave to coal and repair machinery, which was
granted. She was supplied by the authorities with twenty-ti ve tons, and
l)erii)itted to remain for repairs eight days. If t was proper to recog-
Dize ber at all, in no instance have I perceived a firmer tone in dealing
with a vessel of the kind, or a clearer execution of the orders given by
Her Majesty's government. If it happened that the commander sue*
ceeded in getting a larger supply from private sources, it must have
been done surreptitiously and in defiance of their will. On her outward
trip trom Wilmington, she seems to have destroyed some merchant-
vessels. But when she got back, the experiment appears to have been
considered unsatisfactory, for it was not continued. She was again re*
dnced to a transport. Not long afterward Wilmington was taken by
the United States, and the last traces of spurious belligerency ou the
American coast were expunged.
Here I fail to see any reason for charging Her Majesty's government
with any default under either of the three rules prescribed for the guid-
ance of the arbitrators by the terms of the treaty of Washington.
XII.— THE TALLAHASSEE.
This is one of the number of vessels constructed in Great Britain, of
which the Chickamauga, whose case has been already con-
Ridered, is another example. About the first week of April, • i-^Mae^
18&4, she left London, under the name of the Atlanta. Ou the 20th she
arrived in Bermuda. Here she seems to have remained until the 24th
of May, when she started to run the blockade at Wilmingtpn. in which
she appears to have succeeded. For the next month she was running in
the same business between Bermuda and W^ilmington.
"■ I ^ -^ ■■ - * ■ - I- I M ■■■■■■■ ■ ■■ ■ ■!
rtfnssit h entrer dans le port de Wilmington, dans la Caroline dii Nord. L'exp^rience
ayant d<5inontr6 que c*<5tait nn vaissenu rapide et fort, les antoritiSs insurgdes d^cid^'rent
d'y niettre trois canons avec IVqnipenieiit n^cessairo et de le transformer en croisenr
r^;^dier. II priStendit 6tro recouun comnte tel ii Bermude le 7 uovembre. Son com-
mandant y demanda la permission de faire du cliarbou et de rdparer sa machine, ce qui
Ini fut acconKi. II re^ut des an tori t<?^ vingt-cinq tonnes et la permission de reater
hait jours ponr reparations. S'il ^tait convenable de le reconnaltro du tout, je n^ii
trouv^ en aucnn cas un ton plus ferme en traitant avec un vaisseau de cette sorte, ni
une ex6cntion plus nette des ordres donnas par le gooverneinent de sa Majesty. S'il
arriva que le commandant r<5nssit h obtenir un plus grand subside de sources privdea,
ceci doit avoir 6t6 fait subroptictMnent et en l)ra>'^nt sa volontd. Dans sa course apr6a
«tre sorti de Wilmington, il semblw avoir d^truit quatre vaisseaux marchaitds. Mais
qnand il rcvint, rexpdrienco senible avoir 6t6 envisag^e comme pen satisfaisante, car
♦?lle ne fnt pas continn(?e. II fut de nouveau rdduit h I'^tat de transport. Pen de temps
apr^s, Wilmington fut pris par les fitats-Unis, et le^j demibres traces de guerre mari-
time snr la cAte am<^ricaino furent <5tt-intes.
Je ne puis voir ici aucnno raisou d'accuser le gouvernemcnt de sa Majesti^ de faute,
d'apros aurane des trois regies prtscrites pour guider les abitres suivant les teruies du
trait6 de Washington.
LB TAIXAIIASSEE.
C^est nn vaisseaa du nombre de ceux qui out 6t6 construit44 en Angleterre, dont le
Chickamftoga (ce cas a d^j^ ^t^ examind) 6tait un autre exemple. La premiere seinaine
d'arril 1864, k pen pr^s, il quitta Londres sons le nom de I'Atlanta. Le *20 il arriva ii
Bermada. II semble y dtre restd jusqu'au 24 mai, oil il parti t ponr forcer le blocus de
Wilmington, c(f h qnoi il parait avoir rdussi, car le mois suivaut il semble avoir 6t6
«mploy4 de la m^me mani^re entre Bermuda et Wilmington.
216 ARIUTRATION AT GENEVA.
Being found swift and strong, it appears to liave been decided at
Wilmington to make an experiment of turning this vessel into a cruiser.
The equipment and manning were all done tbere, and on the Gth of
August, the commander. Wood, succeeded in running the blockade, and
entered upon his career of depredation.
In this case it is fortunate that we have before us the whole story of
this short cruise narrated by the commander himself, under circum-
stances which render the truth of it probable. Commander Wood, in a
letter purporting to be official, reports these facts : 1. That he sailed five
days to the northward without finding any vessels not European. 2.
That on the lltb, having approached New York, as he pursued the line
of the coast northward, until the 20th, he captured thirty-three vessels,
twenty-six of which he destroyed. Most of them were of small size.
Bj this time he had reached the British provinces, and had consumed
nearly all his coal. So he decided to put into Halifax on the 18tb, and
try his luck for new supplies.
It appears very clearly from his confession that Sir James Hope, the
admiral then in command at the st4ition, like most of the officers in Her
Majesty-s naval service, had no fancy for thfs fraudulent species of bel-
ligerency, and no disposition to be blind to the tricks by which it was
carried on. The lieutenant-governor also gave no hopes of any relaxa-
tion of the rules laid down by the government, whether in regard to his
stay or his supplk^s. After all, he boasts that he did succeed in cheat-
ing him a little, but it was not enough to do any good; so he was com-
pelled to abandon his cruise for the want of coals, and make the best of
his way back to his starting-point. He succeeded in forcing the block-
ade at Wilmington on the 2Gth. This made a cruise of twenty days.
There is some evidence to show that this vessel issued forth once more
as a cruiser from Wilmington, in the early part of November, and made
a few captures. If so, it was under another name, that of the Olustee.
Like other rogues, after having once more exhausted her reputation, she
changed her name a third time, laid down her armament, and presented
Comine on lo tronvait rapiile et fort il paralt que Ton ildeida h Wilmington cVesaayer
do transformer ce vaisseau en croiseur. L'dqnipemeut et le recrutement de Tdqaipagc
Hemblcnt y avoir Ma faits entierement, ot, le 6 aoftt, le commandant Wood rdussit u
forcer le blocuB ct commenga sa carricre de d<5pr6dation8.
Dans cecas 11 est lienreux que nous ayons devaut nous toute I'histoire de cetteconrta
croi8i4>re, racout<5e par le commandant du vaisseau lui-mc^me, dans des circonstances qui
en rendent la v^rit<S probable. Ce monsieur Wood, dans une lettre qu*on pent envisa-
ger comnie officielle, rappelle ces faits : 1. Qu'il tit voile cinq jours vera le nord sans
trouver aucun vaisseau qui ne fftt ouropdeu. 2. Que le 11, s'otant approch<S de New
York, et comme il suivait la ligne des cotes les jours suivants jusqu^iu 20, il captura
trente-trois vaisseaux. dont il dt^truisit vingt-six. La plupart dtait do petits navires.
Pendant ce temps il avait atteiiit les provinces anglaises, et avait consum6 a pen prtJ*
tout son cbarbon. II d<5cida done d'eutrer ii Halifax: le 18, et de tenter la fortune poar
obtenir de nouveaux subsides.
II ressort tros-clairement do sa confession que Sir James Hope, I'amiral qni com-
mandait alors dans la station, comme la plupart des ofKcicrs an service naval desn
Maje8t<5, n'avait aucun goflt pour cette espf^ce de belligorant frauduleux et nulle dispo-
sition il fermer les yeux sur les ruses dont il se servait. Le lieutenant gouvemeur ne
donna non plus aucun espoir do so relAcher des regies t'tablies par le gouvernement,
Roit i\ regard do son s(^jour soit i)our scs subsides. Ajuvs tout cepeudant il se vante
d^avoir r?usKi a le triclier un pen, ma is ce n'ctait pas assez pour rion faire de bon. H
fut done oblig<^ d'abandonner sa course fautc do cbarbon et de faire de son mieux pour
rovenir i\ son point de d<^part. II reussit i\ forcer le blocus de Wilmington lo 26. Cela
faisait une course de vingt jours.
II y a des preuves que ce vaisseau sortit de nouveau comme croiseur de Wilmington
tout an commencement de novembre et fit quelques prises. Si cela est, ce fut sous an
autre nom, celui de I'Olustee. Comme d'autres fourbes, ap^^s avoir encbr© une fois nse
sa rc^putation, il eliangea dc nom une troisieme fois, doposa son armement et se pn^senta
OPINIONS OF MR. ADAMS. 217
herself at Bermuda as a merchantman, with a cargo of cotton, which
she had run out of Wilmington. She was now called, not inappropri-
iitely, the Chameleon. But when, on the 9th April, 1865, all American
ports being finally closed, she reached Liverpool, she was reported at
that place as the Amelia, consigned to Messrs. Fraser, Trenholm & Co.,
the sole remaining representatives of an extinguished fraudulent bellig-
erent.
The conclusion to which I have come is, that there is no evidepce ad-
duced in this case to show that Her Majesty's government has failed to
observe the rules laid down for the regulation of neutrals, as prescribed
by the treatj' of Washington.
XIII. — THE RETRIBUTION.
Of all the spots made memorable in Her Majesty's dominions by the
extent of fraudulent transactions of every description con-
nected with navigation, during the struggle in the United « i''''"^'""
States, the little island of Nassau appears, from the papers before us, to
have eiirned a right to bear away the palm.
The most flagrant instance seems to be now presented to our consid-
eration in the case of this vessel, the Eetribution. So thoroughly is the
truth interwoven with and covered up in a web as well of simulation as
of dissimulation, that I confess it to be a labor of extreme difficulty even
to reach any statement of the facts which I can rely upon as abso-
lutely correct.
It may, however, be assumed as true that, in the year 1856, a steam-
I>ropeller was constructed at Buffalo, in the State of New York, which
was taken to New York, and employed for several years as a tug in that
port.
In the month of April, 18GI, being the precise period of the breaking
out of the conflict in America, this tug appears to have been sent by
the proprietors to the southern coast. No reason for this proceeding is
given, and no port of destination is mentioned. Perhaps the object
a Bermutla coiiiTne vaissean marchand cliarg6 d'ane cargaisoa de coton avec laquelle il
j'tait sorti de Wilmiii^on. II s'appclait alors d'une maui^re convenable lb Caradl^on.
Mais iorsque, le 9 avnl 1865^ toas lea ports amdricains fiirent enfin fermds, il atteignit
Liverpool, fiit enregistr<5 en cet eudroit sons le nom de PAmelia, consign^ 2\ MM. Frazor,
Trenholm et C^«, les seuls repr^^sentants restants d'un belligdrant frauduleux 6telnt.
La conclnsion a laquelle je suis arrive dans co cas est qu'il n'y a pas de preuves pro-
<luite8 pour ddmontrer quo le gouvernement de sa Maje8t<5 a n<^glig^ d^observer Ics
f'-gles <5tablies j^our la conduito dcs neutres prescrites par le traits do Wiisliiiigtion.
LA RETKIIILTION.
De tons les lieux rend us m^^morables dans les dtats de sa Majestd par I'dtendue des
traDsactions fraudulenses de toute esp«>ce, qui se rattachent i\ la navigation pendant le
conflit des l^tat-Unis, la petite villo de Nassau seiuble, d'apres les documents d6pos<53 dc-
vant nous, avoir conqnis le droit de remporter la palme.
L'example le plus tiagrant semble etre maintenant pr<5sent4^ h notre cxamen dans le
cas da vaisecau la Retribution. La v<5rit<5 est tellement eutrelac^^e et couvcrte d'un
tissu de folates et de dissimulations, quo j'avoue que e'est un travail d'une extrfimo
difficulty d'arriver h ancnn expos^ des faits sur lequel jo puisse m^appuyer comme abso-
iument correct.
On pent cependant admettre conime vrai que, dans Vanndo 1856, un steamer h hdlico
fut constrnit 4 BuiTalo, dans Ti^tat de New York, amend iH New York et employ 6 pendant
plusieurs ann^es comme remorciueur dans ce port.
An mois d*avril 1861, 1'dpoque precise ofi dciata le conflit en Amdrique, ce remorqueur
bemble avoir dtd envoyd par les propridtaires sur la c6te sud. Nnlle raison de ce pro-
'•<*dd n'est donnde, et aucun poi-t de destination n'est mentionnd. Peut-etre le but
218 ARBITRATION AT GENEVA.
*
might have beon to find a market. If so, tlie owners must Lave been
disappointed. The tufj was di i ven by stress of weather into Cape Fear
River, where it was siized, alt^r the fashion of that day in that region,
without the trouble of paying anything, and her crew were made pris
oners.
Her machinery seems to have been transferred to some otlier purpose,
for the next tiling we learn is tbat she had become a sailing-vessel, aud
her nai]ie w^as the Retribution.
Meanwhile one year ami a half had elapsed. On the 21st of Novem-
ber, 1802, only, she re-appears at Ciiarleston, in South Carolina, and is
there registered as the private property of one Thomas B. Power, a
citizen ot that place. Here it is reconled that a man named John Parker
is the master. He was neither a citizen of South Carolina, nor of any
of the insurgent States.
It is thus made quite plain that this Mr. Parker, whom we shall soon
find under several other imines, was at that time known only as the
master of a private vessel belonging to a citizen of Charleston. There
was no pretense of a public commission eiiher of the vessel or of its
commander. I can nowhere discover that anything of the sort was ever
produced throughout all the subsequent proceedings.
Nevertheless, it is reasonable to believe that this vessel was armed,
equipped, and manned at Charleston for the purpose of carrying on a
system of depredation. Uer first appearance in this capacity on the
high sea was on the 28th of January, 1863, when she pounced upon the
schooner Hanover, belonging to Provincetown, a small fishing town ou
the coast of Massachusetts, and well on its way to its destination of Aux
Cayes, in the island of San Domingo.
The captain of the Retribution now laid down his name of Parker.
On reaching the Hanover, he at once recognized the master, Washing-
ton Case, as a person he had seen at Piovincetown, when he was there
engaged in a fishing voyage from that [)ort, afew years before. He now
announced himself as Vernon Locke, belonging to the British province
of Nova Scotia.
ponrrait avoir ^t6 de tronver un marchd. Si c*eat \^ le cas, lea propridtaires doiven^
avoir niauqn^ leiir utteiite. Le rt)iiiorqneiir fiit poii8H<$ par le manvais temps daosle
Cape Fear River, <ifi il ftit saisi, d^ipr^s la mode d'alors dans ce pays, sans slnqui^ter
de rieii payer, et I'^quipn^e fiit fait priHoniiitT.
Sa mai'hine 8emb1e avoir <St^ consaor^^e h, iin autre usage, car ce qne nous apprenons
ensiiite, cVst qu'il <Stait devenu uii voilier ef. quo son noni etait la Retribution.
Pendant ce reriip.s, nn an et deiui H*6tait ^('.(»tiI6. Le 21 novemlire ld()2, senlement, il
reparalt ^ ObarleHton, dans \\\ Caroline du Sud, et il y est euregistr^ comiue propri^to
particn i6re d'un Thomas B. Power, citoyen de cette ville. Ici les registres portent
qu'un boniine nomind John Parker en est le capitaine.
11 est parfaitenieiit chiir qne ce M. Parker, que nous tronverons bient6t sons pln-
sieurs autres uoms, n'etait it cette dpoqne connu que comnie capitaine d'un vaisseaa
particulier apparteiiaiit h> nn citoyen de Ciiarleston ; il ir^tait pas citoyeu de la Care-
Jine dn Sud. ui d^Hucnn ^fat insiir^^. II n'y eut pas de pr6texte d*nne commission
publiqne, ni du vaitfseau ni de son <*oniniand:int. Je ne puis ddconvrir iiulle part
qu'ancune piece de cette nature ait jamais ^t6 produite pendant toutes les transactions
subs^qnentes.
N^anmoins il est raisonnablo de croire que ce vaisseau fut arm<5, <^qaip^ et recrot^ii
Charleston dans le but de se livrer si uu HyHt^.ulede depredations. Sa premiere appari-
tion dans ce r6!e en haute mer eut lieu le*2H Janvier 18.i3, oil il pin^a le schooner Han-
over, de Provincetown, petite ville du pScbeniH sur la cdte dn Massachusetts, et sar le
point d'arriver h. sa destination, Aux Cayes, dans I'lle de Sf-.-Domiueno.
Le capitaine de 1h Retribution d6po^4a alors son nom de Parker. En arrivant & bord
dn Hanover il ri'connut inmi6diateni6nt le oipitaine Washington Case c<iuitne une per-
Sonne qu'il avait vue k Provincetown, lorsqnMl y avait ^r^, qnelques anuses aiiparavant,
occupy (Pun voyHjre de p^che de ce port. II s'annonga alors comme Vernon Locke, de
la province anglaise la Nouvelle-^cosae. Si Ton admet ceci, il s'ensait qu'uu citoyen
(»PINI0N8 OF MK. ADAMS. 219
11" this be admitted, it follows tbat a citizen of one of Her Majesty's
dependencies, acting as an officer of a vessel pretending to a belligerent
commission, took possession of tbe Hanover as his lawful prize, turned
adrift the true captain and his crew in an oi)en boat to make their way
to the nearest land as they best could, and then bore off with his prey
toward the island of Long Cay.
A question naturally arises here, whether this Xova Scotia man Locke,
in coming to this region, had been moved to it by any previous lamiliarity
with its facilities for such enterprises as ho was about. The evidence on
this point is not conclusive. Thomas Sampson, a person sent out as a
detective by the United States Government to watch what was going
on at Kassau, affirms that he knew by good report that Locke had been
clerk for Adderly & Co., which fact, if it were true, would go far to ex-
plain the cause of the success of all his operations. But it will not ex-
plain how he, a Nova Scotia man, should have been recognized as a
legitimate commander of a belligerent vessel of the insurgent States by
the authorities of Nassau. But of this I shall have more to say presently.
On the 5th of February, 1863, that is, eight days after the capture of
the Hanover, this vessel arrived at Long Cay. But there came at the
same time another vessel in company, called the Two Brothers, which
Captain Locke had succeeded in the interval iu hunting up, as well as
her owner, a person of the name of Farrington, apparently not unaccus-
tomed to the business of buying up shipwrecked property. But it was
not as Locke that the captain now appeared. This time he had the as-
surance to personate Washington Case, the true master of the Hanover,
\rhom he had sent off with his crew several days before. He told a
story that the vessel had been ashore and consequently sprang a leak,
which would make transshipment necessary. The end of it all was, that
be desired to sell more or less of the cargo. Farrington doubted the
truth of this account from the first, but he did not see why that should
prevent his buying the cargo. So the two proceeded to the office of the
collector, in order to get the necessary permit to land. That officer ex-
<l*ane cles possessions de 8a Majesty, a^issajit comme officier d'lin vaissean prdtendant
avoir udb comunssion de belli^drant, seinpara dn Hauover comme prise Idgale, jeta le
vrai capitaine et son ^qui|)age dans un petit bateau, pour qu'ils ga^nassent la terre la
plas pruche comme ils le pourraient, puis ciugia avec sa prise vers Tile de Long Cay.
Ici s'<51^ve nature! lement la question de savoir si cet bom me de la Nouvelle-JScosse,
Lioeke, en vcnant dans ces parages, y avait ^t<S pouss^ par nne certaine familiarity avec
les facilities qu'il y avait trouv^es auparavant, pour des enterprises comme celle qu'il
projetait. Les prenvcs sur ce point ne sont \nnnt concluant-t^s. Tbomas Sampson,
envoys comme agent de police par le Gouvernemeut des fitats-Unis, pour surveiller ce
qui se passait a Nassau, afiirme qu'il savuit de bonne source que Locke avait 6t6
couimis chez Adderley et C^^, fait qui, sMl dtait vrai, tendrait fortement ^ expliquer la
canso du sneers de toutcs ses operations. Mais cela u'expliquerait pa.H comment lui, fta
honimc de la Nouvelle-I^cosse, aurait 6t6 reconnu comme commandant legitime d'un
raisseau belligdrant des 6tats insurgc^s x)ar les autoritds do Nassau. Mais j'aurai h en
dire da vantage t>out h I'beure.
Le 5 f<6vrier 1863 — c'est-.Vdire, liuit jours ai»res la capture du Hanover — ce vaisseau
.irriva a Long Cay. Mais 11 y arriva en me me temps un autre vaisseau appcliS les
Two Brothers, que le capitaine Locke, dans Tintervalle, avait r^ussi k dccouvrir,
anssi bien que sou propridtairc, du nom de Farrington, qui avait apparemment IMiabi-
tude d'acbeter des propridt^s naufrag(^e«. Mais ce ne fut pas comme Locke qu'apparut
alors le capitaine. Cette fois 11 eut Taudace de jouer le r61e de Washington Case, le
vrai capitaine du Hanover, qn'il avait euvoy^ promener avec son Equipage quelqnes
jonrs auparavant. II fit nne bistoire, disaut que le vaisseau avait touchd terre et qu'en
coDS^quence il avait nne voie d'eau, ce qui reudrait un transborderaent n6cessaire. La
iin de tout cela dtait qu'il d<^sirait vendre plus ou moins de la cargaison. Farrington
donta de la v^nt6 de cette bistoire d^s Tabord, mais 11 ne vit pas pourquoi cela Taurait
empdcb^ d'acbeter la cargaision. Ils se rtMidiront done tons les deux aa bureau dn
rccevf^nr pour obtcnir la permission de ddbarquer. Cet officier examina lea papiero
220 AUniTRATlON AT (5ENEVA.
amined the papers oflfered in the usual manner, asked the custonuiry
questions, and, being satisfied, gave the requisite authority.
Thus every part of Locke's scheme had completely succeeded. Ih^
received his money. Farrington sold the goods, doubtless at a good
profit. The captured vessel was sent to Nassau, there loaded with salt
and provisions to go to one of the insurgent ports, after which there is
no further trace of her.
It should, however, be particularly noted that the manifests of tlie
cargo presented to the collector, upon which the transfer of the property
was authorized, were two. They bore djites on different days, the oth
and 6th February, and both purported to have been signed by the
true captain, Washington Case. But inasmuch as he had been sent on
his way over the sea on the 25th of January, it is clear that the dates
were appended by Locke. Moreover, the two manifests were not iden-
tical either in regard to the articles of the cargo nor to the quantities of
(»ach. Furthermore, the signatures were by no means in the same hand-
writing. It is not unlikely that one of them may have been genuine,
and found on board of the vessel after it was taken. But the other was
so signed that no one .at sight of it could avoid seeing it was not by the
same hand.
Mr. John Burnside, the resident magistrate of Inagua, subsequently
reported to the governor the facts which lie happened to witness. He
affirms that both Farrington and he doubted the truth of Locke's story
at the time. A day or two afterward, by reason of some words dropped
from an intoxicated sailor in the Hanover, the collector was led to sus-
pect some fjilsehood, which induced them all to examine the papers
more closely. The truth became apparent, on inspection, that a palpable
forgery had been committed, and an individual falsely personated.
Here were the collector, the resident magistrate of the district, and
one other person, all of them convinced that a grave offense had been
committed against the law — an offense, too, involving a question of
property, which it would seem to have been the duty of the officers at
<liu lai <!*taient pn'ssntf^.s, dans laforrac ordinaire, tit les qusstioiis usiielles, et, satisfaitj
donna Vautorisation demandoB.
Ainsi le plan de Locko avait r^nssi completement dans tontes ses parties. II recpt
son argent. Farrington vendit la merchandise, sans donte avec grand profit. Le vais-
seau capture fut envoy6 a Nassau ; la, charge de sel ot de provisions pour se rendro ii
I'un des ports insurgi^s, apn>s quoi on ne trouve plus do lui aiicnne trace.
II faut cependaut remarriuer particuli^rement que les *| manifests" de la cargaUon
pr(?3ent<5s an receveur, sur les(iuols le transfert de la propri6t<? fut autorisd, dtaient au
uombre de deux. lis portaient des dates de jours di tie rents, le .5 et le 6 fevrier, et tous
les deux pri^tondaient avoir 6Ui signoK par le vral capitaine Washington Case. Mais
commo il avait dt^. euvoy6 sur nier le 25 Janvier, il est clair que las dates avaient 6U'
ajout^es par Locke. De plus, les deux " manifests '^ nVtaient identiques, ni quant aux
articles de la cargaison, ni quant si la quantity de chacun d'eux. En outre, les signa-
tures n¥taient pas le moins du mondo de la niAme dcriture. II n'est pas invraisembla-
ble (lue Vune d'elles ait pu t'trc authenti(iue et trouvde si bord apnvs sa capture. Mais
Vautre t'tatt dcrite do telle sorte que personno, en la voyaut, ue pouvait manquer dr
rceonnaltrc <iuVllo nVtait pas do la mOme main.
M. John Bnrnsido, matjistrat d'Inagna, rsvpporta plus tard au gouvernonr les faiN
dont il lui dtait arrivd dVtro t<^moin. II aftirme quo tous les deux, Farrington et lui,
onrcnt des dontos snr la verit/^ de I'histoire de Locke s\ cette ^poque. IJn jour ou dcnx
plus tard, en suite do (luehpies mots echappds li uu matelot ivre dn Hanover, le re-
<;eveur fut auienc a soupvouner <iuel(iue mensonge, co qui les conduisit a examiner
tons deux les papi<'rs de plus pn'H. La verite devint manifesto :\ Fexamen : qu'un faux
palpiiblo avait <He commis, et cju'on avait fanssement pris le titre d'un autre individii.
Voili\ done le receveur, le magistrat du district et nne autre personne convaincus
tous trois ([u'une grave otiense avait ft6 commise centre la loi, offense entraluant de
plus uno <iuesti(Hi de propiii'to qu'il aurait <;td, somblo-t-il, dn devoir des ofliciors du
OPINIONS OF MR. ADAM8. 221
least to mentiou officially to the authorities at Nassau. It was for them
to leatl the way, in warning them in season of an abuse which might
iwssibly, and even probably, come to their notice in connection with
both these vessels at Nassau. In point of fact, both of them, as well as
a part of the cargo, went to Nassau and remained some time.
Three weeks elapsed, and, so far as appears by the papers, not a whis-
per regarding this extraoridinary transaction seems to have been com-
municated to the governor or anybody in authority at Nassau. The
llctribution was there and the Hanover was there. Nassau is a very
small place, where every event of this kind naturally would attract some
attention. The officers of the Ketributiou, including Locke himself, had
come there. A single line from the collector would have served to point
attention to the subject, and to iix the eyes of the authorities on the
vessels at least, if not on the men. It is not uni*easonable to infer from
tlie character of the place that the substantial facts attending the cap-
ture were more or less known to many persons, from the moment of the
arrival of the vessels and the men. Tlie collector was dumb. The resi-
dent magistrate was dumb. As to Farrington, nothing could be ex-
IK^cted from him, as he had become more or less a party in interest in
concealing the fraud which he could not doubt had been committed.
Neither is it at all likely that anything more would have ever been
(U8c.jsed by these parties, had it not been that the agent of the under-
writers of the vessel, having lenmed something of the case, on the 20th
of April addressed to the governor a remonstrance against the unlawful
proceeding, and a desire for an investigation. The allegations were dis-
tinctly made —
That the American schooner -llauover was taken to Fortune Ishinil by a poi-son call-
ing himself the master, who communicated to R. W. Farrinj^ton, of the above inland,
his desire to dispose of the cargo of said schooner, and to purchase a cargo of salt ;
That the cargo of the Hanover was transferred to the Brothers, owned by the said Far-
rington, and all, or a part thereof, conveyed to the port of Nassau, and there placed in
charge of James I. Farrington, also one of the magistrates of Fortune Island :
moins de niontionner ofticiellement anx antoritos de Nassau. C'<^tait h enx de prendre
lesdevants en les avcrtissant a temps d'un abus qui pouvait peut-f'tre, et nienie pro-
hablement, venir a lenr connaissance fu rapport avec ces deux vaisseaux si Nassau. En
fait, tons Ics denx, aussi bien qu^une partie de hi cargaison, allerent :\ Nassau et y rest<*-
rent quelqne temps.
Trois seuiaines sVcouh'^rent, et, autant <iu'il ressort des documents, pas un mot con-
cernant cette transaction extraordinaire no semble avoir <^te coniniuni(|u<^ an gouver-
near ui i\ personne en autorit<S si Nassau. La Retribution y dtait et le Hanover y <^tait.
Nassau est un endroit tres-petit, oh tout <^v<^nement de cette nature attirerait uaturelle-
ment quelque att<tfation. Les ofticiera de la Retribution, y compris Locke lui-meme,
y ^talent venus. Une seule ligne du receveur aurait servi s\ attirer I'attention sur ce
Hnjet et h fixer les yeux des autorit<5s sur les vsiisseaux an moins, sinon sur les hommes.
II n*est pa8 deraisonnablo d'inf^rer du caractere de Tendroit que les faits substantiels
conceruant la capture 6taient plus on moins connns de bcaucoup de monde, depuis l6 mo-
ment de Farriv^ des vaisseaux et des hommes. Le receveur fut muet. Le magistrat
fat ranet. Quant h Farrington, on ne ]K)uvnit rien attendre de lui, puisqu'il <^tait
(levenu plus ou moins partie int6rcss<5e h cacher la frande, qu*il ne pouvait douter qifon
eut commise.
II n'est pas non plus vraisemblable du tout ({uo rien de plus edt jamais 6t6 d6yoi\6
par ces personnes, si Tageut des assureura du vaissean, ayant appris quelque chose de
CO cas, u'avait pas adn^s<^, le 20 avril, an gonverneur, une romontrance contre le pro-
«od^ illegal, et nne demande d^uvestigation. Ses all<^gations (5taient nettement faites :
/^Qaele schooner amdricain, le Hanover, avait ct<^ pris :\ Fortune Island par un indi-
vida s'en disant le capit^aine, (pii comniunifpia si R. W. Farrington, do I'lle ci-<les&us,
^n d^ir de disposer de la cargaison du dit schooner ct d'acheter une cargaison de sel.
*'Qne la cargaison du Hanover avait <^tc transbord^^e snr le Two Brothers, proprioto
du dit Farrington, et que tout ou partie en avait M'. transport(^ an port de Nassau, et
l;i» \\\t6 i\ Jam js L Farrington. aussi un des magistrats de Fortune Island.
222 ARBITRATION AT GENEVA.
That the TTauover wa^ loaded with salt, and Bailed for one of the southern purU of
the United States ;
That the party who represented himself as Washinjjton Case, master of the Hanover,
pr«>ve<1 to be the first officer of the armed schooner Retribution ;
That the Retribution was then at Niissa^i, as were also the officers.
The Retribution was then at Navssaii, and had been there rpceived as
a vessel of war of the insurgent States, without a word of remonstraDce
or even of notice by the authorities.
But on the 31st of January, 1802, the Duke of Newcastle had dis-
patched to the governor of Nassau a paper of instructions to guide
his course in regard to such vessels, one of which was to this effect:
Darin;^ the confinuaiico of the present hostilities between the Government of the
United tSratesand the States callini; themselves the Confederate States of America, or
until Her Majesty shail otherwise order, no ship of war or privateer belonj^ing to
either of the del li|;e rents shall be permitte<l to enter. or remain in the port of Nassau,
or in any «»tlier port, or roadstead, or water of the Bihaina Islands, except by special
leave of the lieutenant-governor of the Bahama Islands, or in case of stress of weather.
On the 11th of March following, Governor Bay ley appears to have
issued a prochinuition to tiie people of the B^ihama Islands, commuui
caiiiig these in.structions, and directing obedience to this provision.
The governor of Nassau had not taiveii auy action whatever, so far
as it appears, in prohibiting the entrance or remaining of the Ketribii-
tion in the port of Nassau, tliough he must have known she w^as there.
Ou receiving the letter of Mr. Jacksoii^ he contented himself with a
reference to the attorney-general in these wonls, " I wish to know
wliat steps ought to be taken. • It is suggested that a confederate officer
has made Fortune Island a depot for prizes."
Such was the only point of view in which the governor thought fit to
consider the statement of Mr. Jackson, communicating to him other
fai;ts of which it might have been supposed it was his duty to take notice.
*" Que 1e Hanover avait 6t6 charg6 de sel, et qn*il ^tait parti pour Fan des ports da
and des ^tatsUnis.
• ^^Qu'il avait ^te prouv^ qne Tindividn se donnant ponr Washington Case, cap! taine
du Hanover, ^tait le premier oflicier dn schooner artu^ la R-^trilmtion.
"Que la Kftribution etait alors ii Nassau, aussi bien qne les officiers."
La Retribntion ^tait alors d, Nassau, et y avait ^t^ re^ue coinnie vaisse-au d«
guerre des ^tats insurg^s, sans uu mot de remontrauce ui uue reuiarque de la part des
an ton 1 6s.
Mais le 31 Janvier 186*2, le due de Newcastle avait exp^Sdid au gouverneur de Nassaa
des instructions pour guiiier sa couduite ti Tegard de vaisseanx seuiblables, dout I'aue
6tait congne coninie suit:
** Pendant la dur^e des hostilit^s pr^^entes entre le Gouvernement des fitats-Unis et
les soi-disants ^tats-confed^r^s d'Ani^iique, ou jnsqn'^ ce que sa Mujestd en ordonue
antreiuent, 11 n*^ sera perniis c^ ancun vaissean de guerre ui h aucun corsaire appar*
tenant ii Van on b, Tautre des bellig^rants d^eutrer on de rester dans le port de Ntis^api
ou dans quelqiie autre port, on rade ou dans les eau\ des lies Bahamas, d luoins d'line
perniissiuu sp^ciale du lieutenant gouverneur des lies Bahamas, ou en cas de mauvais»
temps.'*
Le 11 mars snivant, le gouverneur Bayley parult avoir public une proclamation aux
habitants des lies Bahamas, leur communiquant ees instructions et leur ordouoant de
les snivre.
Lh gouverneur do Nassau n'avait pris aucune mesnre, antant quMl le serable, pour
em,»echer IVntrde on le S()jour de la Ketribution dans le port de Nassau, quoiqu'il eiit
dd savoir qn'elle .. 6tait.
Bn recevant la lettre de M. Jackscm, il se contenta do Tenvoyer ilk Tattorney-general
aveucesmors: **Je vtmdrals savoir quelles mesures il faut prendre. On dit qa*un
offi.^ier confi^d^r^ a fait de Fortune Island un d^poc de prises."
Tel 6tait le seul pi»int de vue anquel le gouverneur cr(it convenable de considertr
Vexpos6 de M. Jackson, qui lui avait fait counaltre d*antres faits dont on poavait bup-
poser qn'il <^tait de son devoir de prendre oouuaissance.
OPINIONS OF MR. ADAMS. 223
Tbe Ueti'ibution had been received in Nassau as a confederate vessel
of war, contrary to the terms of his own proclamation.
The Hanover had been received in Nassau as a prize, and had been
fitted ont from there to ^o to the Sjiithern States ot America.
The officers of the vessel were at the time stopping at Nassau, enjoy-
ing the fruits of their viohition of the waters of the Bahamas.
Nobody residing in so small a place, whi^re events of this peculiar
kind were passing before their e^ es, could long remain ignorant of these
iacts.
Yet the governor confines his inquiry of the attorney-general to the
mere fiict that Fortune Island had been made a de^xit for prizes by a
confederate officer.
Tlie attorney -general was Mr. G. C. Anderson, with whom we have
already been made acquainted in the transactions connected with the
steamer Oreto, alian the Florida, which took place in Nassau just one
year before. This gentlenmn does not appear to have been roused into
more activity in the interval. The opinion which he gave in answer to
die governor is in these words:
I have given my best corsiileration to tlie accompanying letter of Mr. J.iekson, in
tbe hope of being alile to adviso his excellency to some eourHu of pi'oc«*e(iing which
uoulil lead to a judicial investigation into the circnniNtanccs conipIaine<l f>f, but I re-
]*Til lo Hay tliat I havo been uuablu to arrive at any other conchi.'iiou tending to such
a vi'NTdt
The conveying uf the Hanover into the port of Long Cay, and there transshipping
the cargo, asMnuiing her t'O liave been a prize of war^ was a violation of Her Majesty's
interdict ou the subject of prizes, and the collector t>f revenue, if he had any cause to
ttns))ect tho character of the vessel and cargo, shouM at once have arrested both ; but
a.H this was not done, and the vesHel has left the colony, and the cargo been disposed
of, no proceeding in rem can now be instituted.
The next question is, whether any parties connected with tho trnnsaction have ren-
iWivil themselves criminally liable; and on this point I aui clearly of opinion in the
negative.
La Retribntion avait 6i6 re^ue i\ Nassau coninie vaisseau de guerre confed^r€ con-
tmireuieut aux termes de sa propre proclamation.
Le Hanover avait 6t6 re^u h Nassau comme prise, ot y avait 6t6 6qnip6 ponr so
rendre aux dtats dn sud de rAnidriqiie.
Les ofttciers de ce vaisseau demeuraient alors a Nassau, jouissant des fruits de lenr
violation des eanx des Bahamas.
PersonDC r<^sidaut dans nn si petit endroit, oti des faits de cette nature particnli^re
ne pstisaient sons les yeux de tous, tie pouvait les ignorer longtemps.
Kt cependant le gnuverneur borne sa question k Pattoriiey-general an simple fait
qifun ofKcier confed^r^ a fait nn d6p6r de prises de Fortune Island.
L'att'Omey-general <^tait M. G. C. Anderson, dont nons avons d<^j}\ fait la connais-
fiance dans les transactions qni se rattachent an steamer TOreto, antreineiit le Florida,
qni eurent lieu si Nassau inste une ann^e anparavant. Ce monsieur ne paraU. pas dtre
devenn plus actif dans riutervalle. L'avis qu'il donna en r^pouse au gouverueur est
conyu en ces termes :
"J*ai examine de mon mienx la lettre inclnse de M. Jackson, dans IVspoir de
pouveir ir.diqiier a son excellence qnelqne ligne de condnite qni pflt nieiier ^ line
«'iu|iiete jiidiciaire dans les circonstances dont on se plaint; mais je regrette de
(iire, que je n*ai pu arriver h ancune autre conclusion tendant & nu semblable
result at.
"Le fait d*amener le IlaHovor dans le port de Long Cay et d'y transborder la
enrj^aihon en IVnvisageant comme nne prise de gnerre ^tait niie vicdatiou de la
(i^teiiKe de (ui Majesty au siijet des prises, et le receveiir des donanes, hMl avait nne
cause qnelconqiie de sns|>ecter le caract^re du vaisseau et de sa cargaison, aiirait dil les
arreter tons les deux ; mais comme ceci n'a pas 6i6 fait, que le vaisseau a qnitt^ la
Cdloiiie, et qn*on a dispose de la cargaison, ou ue peut uiaintenaut en tamer aucnn
pnM'cM is rem.
**La premidre question qni vient enenfte est de savoir si quelquNine des parties
mcleei dans cette affaire s'est rendoe passible d'uu proces criminel ; et sur ce point je
HiiiK nettonient d*avis que oou.
224 ARBITRATION AT GENEVA.
I, however, tbiuk that the charge is oue which calls for some iavestigation, and I
therefore recommend that the magistrate of the district he directed, oa his uext visit
to Long Cay, to institute inquiries with the view of ascertaining the exact facts of
the case, and that the collector of revenue be instructed to be vigilant in preventing
any occurrence of similar acts.
In the first place it should be noted that this opinion at once con-
demns the course of the collector of revenue, who is proved to have had
cause to suspect the character of the vessel and cargo. He says that it
was his positive duty not merely to notify the government of the facts,
but to arrest both vessel and cargo. In point of fact, he did neither,
and gave no notice whatever at the time to the authorities at Nassau.
Yet I do not perceive in the course of these papers the smallest at-
tempt to have been subsequently made to call the collector to any re-
sponsibility. Not a word was said to him of his failure to perform this
l)ositive duty.
In the second place, the attorney-general gives it as his deliberate
opinion that none of the parties to this transaction had rendered them-
selves criminally liable.
It would have been perhaps desirable had that ofi&cer given a single
reason for giviug such an opinion prior to any attempt to investigate
the facts attending the case. There was plenty of evidence to befoand
at Nassau if there were real energy present to seek it. If he had
sought it, it seems impossible that the attorney-generaFs statement
could have been made in good faith. As a clear proof to the contrary,
in point of fact, he himself was the party employed in prosecuting at a
later period an indictment against the principal engaged in these trans-
actions both for conspiracy and forgery.
It is impossible for me to explain this singular action of the at-
torney-general in any other way than this : He meant to say that in a
population so entirely in sympathy with the insurgent cause at that
moment, there was no chance, in his opinion, of procuring a verdict
against any one engaged in it. And in this he was probably right.
But this view of the subject does not relieve Her Majesty's govern-
*' Jo pense cependant que Taccusation est do nature h cxiger quelque examen et je
rccommande eu cons<^quence que le magistrat du district re^oive pour instruction
dans sa i^rochaino visite si Long Cay de faire des enqui^tes pour constater les fait^
exacts du cas, ct que le receveur soit invito a C*tre vigilant pour empecher tout retour
d'actos scmblahles.'*
Tout d'abord, on doit remarquer c[ue cet avis condanine du coup la conduite du
receveur, qui est prouv^S avoir eu des motifs de suspecter le caract^re du vaisseau et de
la cargaison. II dit que son devoir positif <^tait nou-seulement de notifier les faits
au gouvernement, mais encore d'arr^ter le vaisseau et la cargaison. En fait, il ne fit
ni Tun ul Tautre, et ne donua aucnu renseignement, ii cette <5poque, aux autorit^s de
Nassau.
Kt pourtant je n'aper^ois pas dans tons ces documents que la plus petite tentative
ait dtc faite plus tard pour reudre le receveur responsable.
En second lieu, Tattorney-general donue comme son avis r<^il6chi qu'aucune de>
parties m(^l<5es dans cette affaire ne s'est rendue passible d'un process criminel.
II aurait 6t6 peut-^tre d^irrble que cet ofiicier edt donn6 une seule raison d*uD tol
avis, avant toute tentative d'enqu6te sur les faits se rapportant & ce cas. On devait
trouver une abondance de preuves k Nassau, s'il y avalt eu une voloute ferme d« ]e>
chercher. S'il les avait cherchdes, il senible impossible que Texpos^^ de I'attorney-
geueral pflt avoir 6t6 fait de bonne foi. En effet, comme preuve couvaincante du con-
traire, il fut la personne employ<Se pour dinger plus tard une poursuite contre le nie-
ncur de ces aiiaires pour conspiration et faux.
chance, dans son opinion, d'obtenir un verdict contre qui <]ne ce fftt qui y dtait engage.
Et en ceci il avait probablcnient raison.
Mais cH'tte luainiMv d'nivisnger le sn;et ne d'^cliarge p.is le gouvernement de sa
OPINIONS OF MR. ADAMS. 225
meutfroin the obligations towards the innocent and injured party, in-
curred by the neglect of her servants to use due diligence in their vo-
cation to protect it from wrong.
But I must now go back in my relation of the operations of this
man, named Captein Parker, alias Ca«e, alia^ Locke, to the point where
I left him, having accomplished his end at Long Cay of converting into
money the plunder he had obtained from the cargo of the Hanover.
He seems to "have left Long Cay in the vessel called the Two Brothers,
into which that part of the cargo was transferred which was destined
to be sold at Nassau. But this was done only to evade observation.
He stopped at a place called Bum Cay, where he landed, and not long
after the Eetribntion appeared, and took him off.
This must have been about the middle of February. Locke then re-
sumed his cruise, and, on the 19th, being somewhere in the neighbor-
hood of a place called Castle Island, he came across an American brig
called the Emily Fisher, on a voyage from the island of Cuba to New
York, laden with sugar. Whether intentionally or otherwise is not ab-
solutely clear, five or six British wrecking-schooners were lying at an-
chor under the land, whilst the master of another one, called the Emily
Adderley, which was cruising about, bethought himself of boarding
the Emily Fisher, and entering into some conversation with the captain
touching the safety of the navigation, &c. This being over, a signal ap-
pears to have been given from the Adderley, the effect of which was at
once visible by the approach of another vessel. The result was that
the Emily Fisher was seized as a prize JSj the confederate schooner
Retribution.
And now Captain Locke seems to have really put into execution the
scheme which he had only pretended in the case of the Hanover. He
consulted with the captains of the five British wreckers, the effect of
which was that they took the brig, and, at about 6 p. m., ran her clean
on shore. The next day the wreckers had so far unloaded the brig of
her sugar that she was again afioat. The master of the brig, who, with
k
Majesty des obligations en vers la partie iDnocente et l^s^e, encoorues par la n^ji^ligenoe
(le 868 officiers ^ exercer *'dae diligence '' dans lear mission de la prot^ger oontre toat
dommage.
Mais je dois maintenant revenir dans mon rdcit des op6rations de cet homme nomm6
le capitaine Parker, aluu Case, alias I^ocke, an point oil je I'ai laiss^, apr^s avoir
accompli son dessein k Long Cay de convertir en argent le butin qu'il avait obtena de
la cargaison du Hanover.
II semble avoir qnitt6 Long Cay snr le vaissean appeM les Two Brothers, dans leqnel
avait €t6 transpoit4e cette partie de la cargaison qui 6tait destin6e ^ 6tre vendue dk
Nassan. Mais o'^tait senlement pour 6viter les observations. £n effet il s'arrdta en
nn endroit nomm6 Rum Cay, oh il d<$barqu£(, et, pen de temps apr^s, la Retribution pamt
et le prit ^ bord.
Ceci doit 8'6tre pass^ h pen p^^8 an milieu de fdvrier. Locke reprit alors sa course,
et le 19, 86 trouvaut quelque part dans le voisinage d'un endroit appel^ Castle Island,
il rencontra nn brick amdricain nomm^ VEmily Fisher, en route de Tile de Cuba pour
New York, charg6 de sucre. Soit avec intention, soit autrenient, oela n'est pas tr^
clair. cinq on six schooners anglais de sauvetage^feaient k Pancre pr^ de terre, pendant
que le capitaine d'un autre, nomm^ r£mily Adderley, qui croisait 1^ antour, imagina
d aborder ie Fisher, et d'entrer en conversation avec le capitaine an sujet de la s^cnrit^
de la navigation, etc. Apr^ ce bout de conversation, un signal paralt avoir 6t6 donn6
dn Adderley, dont Pefifet devint bient6t visible par I'approache d'un autre vaissean.
Le r6sQltat fut que TEmily Fisher fut saisi comme prise du schooner con{6d6r6 la Retri-
bntion.
£t maintenant le capitaine Locke semble avoir r^ellement mis k execution le plan
qn'il avait senlement feint dans le cas du Hanover. II tint conseil avec les capitaines
des cinq schooners anglais, et le r^snltat fut quails prirent le brick et que, vers oinn
heures apr^midl, ils le jett^rent & la c6te. Le lendemain les sauveteurs avaient assez
d^charge le brick de son sncre pour qu'il fQt remis ik flot Le capitaine du brick, qui^
15 B
226 ARBITRATION AT GENEVA..
his crew, Lad been put ashore close by, seeing these operations going^
on, made some effort to reclaim the property. He applied to tbe au-
thorities for assistance, but they declined to give him any prior to his
securing a release from the claims of the wreckers for salvage. The
consequence was that, by paying one-half of the v£\1ub of the cargo,
and one-third of that of the vessel, she was hually returned, divested
of almost everything movable on and under deo.k. AH this time the
brig was lying under the guns of the Betribution, and the authorities
to whom he appealed declared themselves wholly unable to protect him.
From this narrative, it seems tolerably plain that the master of the Eet-
ribution, after seizing this vessel, entered into an agreement with these
wreckers to cause her to be driven ashore, and then to divide the proceeds
which might be collected in one way or another from false claims of salv-
age: and inasmuch as the master offered more money than they could reas-
onaoly expect to realize by any other disposition they could make of it,.
with less trouble to themselves, they accepted the terms. The authori-
ties at Long Cay, fully aware of the transaction, the nature of whicb
they could not misconceive, gave it their sanction. Neither does tbe^
collector appear to have ever given any report of the transaction. .
A more thorough prostitution of the powers of the Government to
the most flagrant purposes of plunder, under pretenses which could de-
ceive no one, it has not been my lot to witness, even in the long record
of frauds submitted in the volumes before us.
It may be alleged, on the part of Her Majesty's government, that
these were the results of the offenses of irresponsible parties, for which
it is not the custom of governments to be held liable to other nations.
The answer to this is, thatjwhen the Ketribution made her appearance
in the port of Nassau, after 'having executed the outrages described,
the collector declares that she did not enter as a trader; she was treated
as a confederate vessel of war.
avec Bon <^qai^age avait 4t6 mis ^ torre toat df^s, voyant ces operations en train, fit
qnelque tentative pour r^clamer sa propridt<^. II demanda da seconrs ans autoritd^,
mais ellea refus^rent de Ini en donner aucun, avant qu'il edt obtenn nn acquittement
des demandes des saovetenrs pour sauveta^e. La conik^quence fut, qa'en payant la
moiti^ de la yalenr de la cargaison et le tiers de celle dn yaissean, il lui fnt renda
d^ponilie de presque tout ce qu'on put emporter snr le pont et aa-dessous. Pendant
tout ce temps le brick 6tait sous les canons de la Retribution, et les autorit^^s auxqtielle»
il en appela se d4clar^rent tout-lb-fait impuiHsantes k le protdger.
Par ce r^cit il semble assez clair que le capitaine de la Retribution, apr^-s aroir saisi
ce TaisBean, entra en arrangement aveo ces sanveteurs pour qn'il fftt Jet^ h la c6te, et
pour partager ensuite les b<5nt5fice8 qui ponrraient dtre retire, de maui^re ou d'autre^
de fauBses demandes de Bauvelage. £t, yn aue le capitaine offrit plus d'argent qn'ilft
ne ponvaient raisonnablement eep6rer en r^aliser, par n'importe quelle fa^on d'en dis-
Soser aveo moins de peine pour eux, lis accent^rent les cbnditions. Et les autorit^
e Long Cay, bien renseign^es h r<$gard de raifaire, sur la Bature.de laqaelle elles ne
ponvaient pas Be tromper, y donu^rent leur sanction. Le receveur uon pins ne semble
aroir fait auoun rapport sur cette transaction.
Une plus complMe prostitution des ponvoirs dn gouvemement pour les desseins les
phis flagrants de pillage, sous des pretextes qui ne ponvaient troniper peraonne, il ne
m'est pas arrive d en rencontrer, mdme dans de long recneil dea fhiudes rassembl^eB
dans les volumes devant nous.
On i)eut all^^ner de la part dn gonvemement de sa M^jest^ que oelles-ci furent le
r^ultat des ofienses de parties irresponsables, pour lesauelles ce n'eet pas I'habitade
des gonvemements d'dtre tenns pour responsables envers les autrea nations. *
La r^ponse k ceci est que quand la Retribution fit Ba premiere apparition dans le
port de Nafisau, apr^ avoir commis les outrages d^rits pins hant, le receveur declare
qn'elle n^entra pas comme vaissean de commerce. Elle fnt trait6e comme vaissean de
guerre conffid^rd. Cependant aucune application ne aemble Ini avoir ^t^ faite dee
Ingles prescrites par le gonvemement de sa Majest6 le 31 Janvier 1S62, excluant dea
ports, des rades et des eaux des lies Bahamas tout vaisaeau seiublable sans permissioB
i^p^ciale.
OPINIONS OF MR. ADAMS. 227
On the 3d of March this vessel had been dismantled, and her hull was
sold at public auction by Messrs. Adderley & Co. She brought the sum
of £250. But it nowhere appears to whom the proceeds were credited.
Messrs. Adderley & Co., who probably knew the whole story of this
vessel from its origin to its sale, were never called upon to disclose it.
Neither does it appear that the governor took the smallest notice of
so material a transaction.
Nor yet is it likely that any more inquiries would have been made in
any quarter had it not been for a reminder which the authorities were
not at liberty to neglect. On the 4th of April Mr. Seward, the Secre-
tary of State of the United States, addressed a note to Lord Lyoiis,
then the British minister at Washington, stating the facts attending
the capture of the Hanover in British waters, and demanding repara-
tion. Lord Lyons sent a copy of this note not onlj*^ to Earl Russell but
directly to the governor gf Nassau.
The governor, on receipt of this dispatch, addressed a reply directly
to Lord Lyons, transmitting the report received from Mr. Burnside.
when expressly called upon the 20th April previous, which is found
among the papers before us, and concluding with the following para-
graph:
Whatever the character of the Retribntion, or whoever the ostensible master may
have been, I am convinced that no snspicions of either were entertaioed by any offi-
cials of this government until it was too late to act on them.
I have directed further iuquiries to be made.
I cannot suppress my surprise at the calmness of such an affirmation,
when the report which he seut, and to which he alludes, seems to my
eyes distinctly to admit the fact that all three persons, the collector,
Mr. Farrington, and himself, entertained so great doubts of the truth of
the statements made to them by Locke, that it seems to me to have been
a positive duty in the two officers, at least, to have pursued an investi-
gation certainly so far as to penetrate the reasons for the falsehood, th^
iraad, and the forgery by which the business was accompanied.
The unsatisfactory nature of this report was plainly intimated by Mr.
Le 3 mars, ce vaisseau avait ^t^ d^manteM, et sa coqne fut vendue en vente publiqae
par Messieurs Henry Adderley et C'*'. £Ue rapporta la somme de £250. Mais on ne
troQve nnlle part qui fut cr^it^ de ce b($u6fice. Messieurs Adderley et C'% qui proba-
blement connaissaient tonte Thistoire de ce vaisseau, depuis son origine jusqu'&sa
^eate, ne forent jamais appel<Ss ^ la mettre an jour. Le gouverneur ne semble pas uoh.
plus avoir fait la moindre remarque sur une transaction aussi grave.
II n'est pas probable non plus qu'aucnne enqudte eClt ^t^ faite nulle part, s'il n'y
avait pas eu. un rappel que les antorit^ n'avaient pas la liberty de n^gliger. Le 4 avril,
^. Seward, Secretaire d^^tat des £tats-Unis, adressa uue note h Lord Lyons, alnrs mi-
nistred'Angleterre ^ Washiugton, exposantlesfaits concemaut la capture du Hanover
dsns les eanx an^laises, et demandant reparation. Lord Lyons envoya une copie de
eette note, non-seulement au Comte Russell, mais directement an gouverneur de Nassau
Le gouverneur, 4 la reception de cette d^p^he, r^pondit directement k Lord Lyons,
en Ini transmettant le rapport re^u de M. Bumside, quand il y fut express^ment invite,
le 20 avril precedent, qui se trouve parmi les documents devant nous et se terminant
par le paragraphe snivant :
" Quel qu'ait pu dtre le caract^re de la Retribution, on son capitaine ostensible, je suis
€0Qvaincu qu'aucun soupyon & regard de Fun ou de Tautre n'a ete coo^u par aucnn
officier de ce gouvemement jusqu'I ce qu'il ait ete trop tard pour agir oontre eux.
*' J'ai donne des instructions pour que Ton fit des enqu^tes ulterieures." •
Je ne puis taire ma surprise du calme d'une teUe affirmation, quand le rapport qu'il
envoyait, et aaquel 11 est fait allusion, semble h mes yeux admettre diatinotement le fait
que tons les trois, le receveur, M. Farrington et lui, conyurent de si grands dontee sur
la verite des exposes gue leur fit Looke, qu'il me semble avoir ete un devoir positif
poor les deux officiers au meihs de faire une enqu6te, assez loin certainement pour
p^netrer les motifs da mensoDge, de la fraude et du faux dont ils etaient accompagnea.
H Seward fit assez clairement entrevoir la nature peu satisfaisante de ce rapport
228 ARBITRATION AT GENEVA.
Seward when he received it, and was also signified to the governor by the
Duke of Newcastle, on behalf of the government at home. This stim-
ulated the authorities to eflforts to seize and to prosecute the chief
oflfenders still hanging about the place. It was clear they were British
subjects, guilty of something very like piracy, as well as of forgery and
fraud. Of the judicial proceedings that followed I desire to speak
with the moderation due to the courts of a foreign nation. But I could
only repeat the remarks which I made in regard to this matter in my
review of the case of the Florida. The arbitrators appear to me .it
least to have a duty to the parties before the tribunal to state their
convictions of the exact truth, without fear or favor. In the perform-
ance of my share of it, I cannot omit to point out — (1,) the evasion of
the important witnesses when they were wanted, and their re-appear-
ance in perfect security afterward ; (2,) the refusal of the collector at
Long Cay, the most important and responsible agent of the govern-
ment in the transaction, to appear at first ; and (3,) the absence of all
testimony as to the facts within his knowledge when he actually ap-
peared ; (4,) the avoidance of all testimony of the same kind on the
part of Burnside, the magistrate of Inagua, whose first report, made to
the governor, showing his knowledge of them, is among the papers be-
fore us ; (5,) the straw-bail required of the principal culprit by the
court, and his ready forfeiture of it when he pleased ; (6,) the intima-
tion of Governor Eawson, that if it had been £1,000 instead of £100,
it would have been equally supplied to him, if required to save him;
and, lastly, the acquittal of the criminal by reason of the disappear-
ance of the most important witness for his condemnation ; all together
present a more melancholy and scandalous spectacle of the paralysis of
a judicial tribunal than has ever before been met with, at least in my
experience.
The fact is too plain that the population of Nasssiu and its vicinity
quaud il le re^ut^ et le dnc do Newcastle donna t^ entendre la mfime chose an goaver-
neur de la part da gouveruement de TAngleterre. Ceci pousaa lea aatorit^ ^ f»ire
leurs efforts pour eaitiir et pour poursuivre les principaux conpables qui rAdaient ton-
jours autour de I'lle. II <^tait clair qu'ils ^taient sujets anglais, conpables de qnelqne
chose qui resseniblait beaucoup ^ de la piraterie, anssi bien que do fanx et de fraude.
Je d^ire parler des poursuitos jndiciairos qui suivirent avec la moderation dte anx
conrs d'une nation 6traug^re. Mais je ne pourrais que r6p6ter les remarqaes qnefai
faites k r<^,gard de cettc mati(>re dans ma revue du cas du Florida. Lea arbitres me
semblcnt avoir, envers les parties qui sent devant ce tribunal, an moins le devoir d'ex-
poser leurs convictions de rexacte v<^rit<$ sans peur ni partiality. Dans I'accomplisse-
uient de ma tdche, je ne puis omettre d'iudiquer :
1. L'<^va8ion des tdmoins iniportants quand on eat besoin d'eux, et lenr r^pparition
en parfaite s^cnrit^S plus tard.
2. Le refus du receveur.de Long Cay, Tagent le plus important et le plas responsa-
ble du gonvernement dans cette transaction, de paraltre d'abofd.
3. L'absence de tout t<^moignage, quant aux faits ^ sa connaissance, lorsqu*il pamt
effectivement. •
4. Le silence de Barnside, le magistrat d'Inagna, sur tout t^moignagd de la m^me
nature, et pourtant son premier rapport au gouverneur, attestant sa counaissance des
fiiit-B, est parmi les documents devant nons.
5. La oantiliu insignifiante exig^e du principal conpable par la conr, et la facility
avec laqnelle il y manqua quand ille jugea bon.
6. Le sentiment du gouverneur Rawson que, sHl s'^tait agi de £1,000 aa lieu de
£100, on les lui anrait 6galement accord^es, si cela avait ^t6 n^essaire ponr lo saaver
et enfin, racquittement du criminel dk cause de la disparitian da t^moin le plas impor-
tant poor sa condamnatiou.
Le tout ensemble pr^sente an spectacle plus triste et plus soandalenx de la paralyme
d'an tribunal Jadiciaire qu'aocun de ceux qui ae soient jamais prdeent^ aa moins h
ma connaissance.
Le fait est olair qae la population de Kassaa et de son yoiainage, 6tait devenae si
OPINIONS OF MR. ADAMS. 229
had become so completely demoralized by familiarity with the fraadulent
transactioDS constantly passing before their eyes, as well as the nnu-
saal profits accruing therefrom to themselves, that they were neither
in a condition nor in a disposition to visit with harshness any crime,
however flagrant, that could be associated, however remotely, with the
operations of the insurgents in their waters.
It appears to me to l^ clear that the collector of the port of Long
Cay failed in due diligence when he omitted to give any report whatever
to the governor of the flagrant acts committed by Locke in forging the
signature and attempting to represent the person of another man, as
well as in conspiring, in defiance of the authorities, to obtain fiilse sal-
vage, by force of «arms, of an innocent party.
It appears to me that the magistrate of luagua failed in duediligence*
when he omitted to give immediate notice to the governor of the facts
which he only reported when specially called upon by him three weeks
afterward.
It appears to me that the governor failed in due diligence when he
omitted to take notice of the presence of a vessel of the insurgents, in
the port, which was expressly prohibited to enter it by the instructions
of the government at home.
By reason of that failure, he further failed in due diligence in inform-
ing himself of the reasons which had brought that vessel, as well as its
prize, the Hanover, into the port — ^facts which could not have failed to
become known to him had he instituted a faithful investigation.
It appears to me that the attorney-general failed in due diligence
when he gave his first opinion, declining to act against the men whom
he had reason to believe criminals, as well as in all the subsequent pro-
ceedings which he instituted against them in the court.
For these acts of omission and commission, the nation injured can look
for reparation only to the government holding the sup}.'eme authority
over the territory wherein they happened. It clearly appears that no
energy existed, in any official quarter to maintain neutrality. .
oompl^tement d(Smoralis6e par Thabitade des transactions fraud ulenses qui se passaient
MDB cocao devant ses yeux, et par les b<$n^fices inusit^s qu'elle en retirait, qu'elle u'^tait
ni en 6tat ni en disposition d'agir avec 96v6r\t6 oontre tout crime, quelque flagrant qn^I
fiit, que Ton pouvait rattacher, mdme d'nne mani^re ^loigu^e, aux operations des in-
Borg& dans ses eanx.
if me paralt clair que le receveur du port de Long Cay a nianqu^ aux *' dues dili-
gences" en omettant de douner au gouverneur aucune uonvelle quelcouque des actes
flagrants commis par Locke, en contrefaisant la signature et en essay ant de joner le
r61e d'ane autre personne, aussi bien que du complot en d6fl des autorit^s pour obtenir
d'ane partie innocente de faux droits de sauvetage par les armes.
n mesemblequele magistrat d'Inaguaa manqu6 aux " dues diligences" en n^gligeant
de donner imm^diatemeut connaissance au gouverneur des faits qu'il ue rapporta qua
lorequ'il y fut spdcialement invito par lui, trois semaines plus tard.
U me aenible que le gouverneur a manqu6 aux '^dnes diligences '* en n^gligeant de
remarquer la prince dans le port d'un vaisseau des insurg(5s, auquel 11 6tait express^-
meot d^fendu d'entrer par les instructions du gouvemement de I'Angleterre.
En suite de cette negligence, il manqua plus tard aux " dues diligences " en s'informant
des raisons qni avaient amen^ ce vaisseau, aussi bien que sa prise, le Hanover, dans ce
port, fait qui n^aurait pas manqu6 d'arriver 4 sa connaissance, s'il avait fait une laves-
ti^tion conscienoieuse.
II me semble que I'attorney-^eneral a manqu^ aux ^'dues diligences*' en donnant
•on premier avis, refusant d^agir contre les homracs qn'il avait des raisons de croire
crimmek, aussi bien que dans toates les meoures subs^quentes qu'il prit contre eux dans
les coan.
Pour cea actes d'omission et de commission, la nation l^s^e no pent demander
reparation qu'an gouvernement exer^ant Fautorite supr6me sur le territoire oil ils se
•cot passes. II ressort clairement qn'il u'y cut nulle energie dans aucune des regiouB
offlcieUes pour maintenir la neutralite.
230 ARBITRATION AT GENEVA.
Hence roy conclusion is, that a liability is clearly imposed upon Her
Majesty's government, in the case of the. Retribution, under the terms
of the treaty of Washington.
D<^ lors ma conclusion est qu'ane responsabilit^ est clairement impds^e au ^ou-
vemeraent de sa Majesti?, dans le cas de la Retribution, d'apr^s les termes du traits de
Washington.
ori:^iONS OF sir Alexander cogkburn.
. The indirect claims at first insisted on by the Government of the United
States being now out of the question, we have to deal with the claims
for damages, ^' growing out of the acts " of certain ^ecified vessels, as
to which it is alleged that, by reason of some default on the part of the
government of Her Majesty the Queen of England, these vessels were
enabled to take and destroy ships and cargoes belonging to citizens of
the United States.
The causes of complaint put. forward by the United States Govern-
cau«., of com- cmmeut may be classed under the following heads:
SJd^T^"!^ Luiied !• That by reason of want of due diligence on the part
8ute,. Qf ^^ British government, vessels were sdlowed to be fitted
out and equipped, in ports of the United Kingdom, in order to their
being employed in making war against the United States, and, having
been so equipped, were allowed to quit such ports for that purpose.
2. That vessels fitted out and equipped for the before^mentioned pur-
I)ose, in contravention of the foreign-enlistment act, and being therefore
liable to seizure under that act, having gone forth from British ports,
but having afterward returned to them, were not seized as they onght
to have been, but, having been allowed hospitality in such port«, were
suffered to go forth again, to resume their warfare against the commerce
of the United States.
3. That undue favor was shown in British ports to ships of war of the
Confederate States in respect of the time these ships were permitted
to remain in such ports, or of the amount of coal with which they were
permitted to be supplied.
4. That vessels of the Confederate States were allowed to make
British ports the base of naval operations against the §hips and com-
merce of the United States.
Owing to all or some one or other of these causes, vessels of the
Confederate States were enabled, it is alleged, to do damage to the com-
ftierce of the United States.; and compensation is claimed in respect of
the damage so done.
The treaty of Washington, from which our authority is derived, lays
The treaty of dowu, for our guidaucc in dealing with and deciding on
w.*hiu«ton. these claims, certain rules as to the obligations of Great
Britain as a neutral state, which for the purpose of this arbitration are
to be taken to have been binding on it.
Not, indeed, that the British government admits that these rules forfii
part of the law before existing between nations. On the contrary, it is
expressly stated that ^' Her Britannic Majesty has commanded her
high commissioners and plenipotentiaries te declare that Her Majesty's
government cannot assent to the foregoing rules as a statement of prin-
ciples of international law which were in force a); the time when the
claims mentioned in Article I arose, but that Her Majesty's govern-
OPINIONS OF SIR ALEXANDER COCKBURN. 231
mentj in order to evince its desire of strengthening the friendly rela-
tions between the two countries, and of making satisfactory provision
for the future, agrees that, in deciding the questions between the two
countries arising out of those claims, the arbitrators should assume that
Her Majesty's government had undertaken to act upon the principles
set forth in these rules. And the high contracting parties agree to
ohserve these rules as between themselves in future, and to bring them
to the knowledge of other maritime powers, and to invite them to accede
to them." 1
The rules in question are as follows :
A neutral government is bound —
First. To use due diligence to prevent the fitting out, arming, or equipping within
itsjorisdiction, of any vessel which it has reasonable ground to believe is intended to
craise or to carry on war against a power with which it is at peace ; and also to use
like diligence to prevent the departure from Its jurisdiction of any vessel intended to
<^^li9e or carry on war as above, such vessel having been specially adapted, in whole or
in part, within such juiisdiction, to warlike use.
Secondly. Not to permit or suffer either belligerent to make use of its ports or waters
as the base of uaval operations against the other, or for the purpose of the renewal or
aagmentatiou of military supplies or arms, or the recraitment of men.
Thirdly. To exercise due diligence in its own ports and waters, and, as to all per-
sons within its jurisdiction, to prevent any violation of the foregoing obligations and
duties.^
With these rules before it, the tribunal is directed to determine as to
each vessel, "whether GreAt Britain has, by any act or omission, failed
to fulfill any of the duties set forth in such rules, or recognized by the
principles of international law not inconsistent with such rules."
The effect of this part of the treaty is to place this tribunal in a posi-
tion of some difficulty. Every obligation for the non-ful- Diftcuuy *ri«i,t
fiUment of which redress can be claimed presupposes a f«muiotr«tjr.
prior esisting law, by which a right has been created on the one side
and a corresponding obligation on the bther. But here we have to deal
with obligations a^ssumed to have existed prior to the treaty, yet
arising out of a supposed law created for the first time by the treaty.
For we have the one party denying the prior existence of the rules to
which it now consents to submit as the measure of its past obligations,
while the other virtually admits the same thing ; for it " agrees to ob-
serve the rules as between itself and Great Britain in future, and to
bring them to the knowledge of other maritime powers, and invite them
to accede to them " — all of which would plainly be superfluous and vain
if these rules already formed part of the existing law recognized as ob-
taining among nations.
It is, I cannot but think, to be regretted that the whole subject-mat-
ter of this great contest, in respect of law as well as of fact, was not left
open to us, to be decided according to the tr^ie principles and rules of in-
ternational law in force and binding among nations, and the duties and
obligations arising out of them, at the time when these alleged causes
of complaint are said to have arisen.
From the history of the treaty of Washington we know that it was
proposed by the British commissioners to submit the entire question,
both as to law and fact, to arbitration ; but the commissioners of the
United States refused to "consent to submit the question of the liability
of Great Britain to arbitration unless the principles which should gov-
ern the arbitrator in the consideration of the facts could be first agreed
upon." In vain the British commissioners replied that they "should be
willing to consider what principles should be adopted for observance in
* Treaty of Washington, Article VI.
232 ARBITRATION AT GENEVA.
future, but that they were of opinion that the best mode oi conducting
an arbitration was to submit the facts to the arbitrator, and leave him
free to decide upon them after hearing such arguments as might be
necessary." The American commissioners replied that they should be
willing to consider what principles should be laid down for observance
in similar cases in future, but only with the understanding that '^ any
principles which should be agreed upon should be held to l^ applicable
to the facts in respect to the Alabama claims.'' The British commis-
sioners and government gave way, possibly without fully appreciating
the extent to which the principles of which they were thus admitting
the application would be attempted to be carried in fixing them with
liability.
How this apparent anomaly arose is plain. Her Majesty's govern-
ment, animated by a high sense of justice and by an earnest desire of
conciliation, were anxious to remove every possible cause of complaint
or sense of wrong which the Government and people of the United
States had, or believed themselves to have, against Great Britain as to
matters arising out of the civil war; they were willing that if, through
any errrors or shortcomings on the part of British authorities, injury
had been caused to American subjects, full redress should be afforded;
they were willing that the question should be determined by an inde-
pendent and impartial tribunal; and though they would naturally have
preferred that the matters in dispute between the two countries should
be decided by what they believed to be the rules of international law
governing the case, rather than that, if the decision should be in
favor of Great Britain, the American people should feel that the con-
test had not been determined according to what, in their view, were the
principles applicable to it. Her Majesty's Government gave way to the
desire of that of the United States, and consented that the rules by
which it was agreed that the duties and obligations of the two nations
should be governed in any future case should be taken to be the measure
of the past obligations and duties of Great Britain with reference to the
subject-matters of the dispute.
It was a great and generous concession, and though the effect of il;
might bo a pecuniary sacrifice on the part of Great Britain, it was one
which was cheerfully made on the one side, and I trust will not fail to
be appreciated in the same generous spirit on the other.
If, however, thie differences which have unhappily arisen between the
United States and Great Britain were to be determined, not according
to the rules of international law which the arbitrators to be agreed on
Bhould determine to be applicable to the case, but according to rules to
be settled by the contending parties themselves, then I cannot but wish
that the framers of this treaty had been able to accomplish the difficult
task, now left to us, of dehning more precisely what is meant by the
vague and uncertain term ''due diligence," and had also set forth the
further " principles of international law, not inconsistent with the rules
laid down," to which reference is made as possibly affecting the liabihty
of Great Britain.
To some of the heads of complaint hereinbefore referred to, this ob-
servation does not indeed apply. Whether vessels, which might orig-
inally have been seized, should have been so dealt with when they re-
entered British ports, or whether they were protected by the commis-
sions they had in the mean while received from the confederate govern-
ment ; whether confederate ships of war were permitted to make Brit-
ish ports the base of naval operations against the United States;
whether the accommodation afforded to them in British ports consti-
OPINIONS OP SIR ALEXANDER COCKBURN. 233
tuted a violation of neutrality, for which Great Britain can be held lia-
ble, are questions which are left to be decided and must be decided ac-
cording to the rules of international law alone.
But when we have to de<al with the far more important question of
the liability of Great Britain by reason of the omission to use ^^due
diligence'' to prevent the equipment of vessels of war in her ports, as
required by the treaty, we find nothing in the treaty to direct us as to
the meaning of that term, especially as regards the degree of diligence
which is to be understood to be required by it.
Left in this difficulty, we must endeavor to determine for ourselves
the extent and meaning of the "due diligence" by which we are to
test the alleged shortcomings of the government of Great Britain. For,
it is plain that the standard of " due diligence" ought not to be left to
the unguided discretion of each individual arbitrator. The municipal
law of every country, wherever diligence is required by the law, whether
in respect of obligations arising out of contract, or in regard to the due
care which every one is bound to exercise to avoid doing harm to the
persons or property of others — ne alienum loedat — prescribes some
standard by which the necessary degree of diligence may be tested.
Dealing here with a matter appertaining to law, it is to juridical sci-
ence that we must look for a solution of the difficulty. And since we
have to deal with a question of international law, although, it is true,
of an exceptional character, it seems to me that it will be highly useful
to endeavor to form a clear view of the reciprocal rights and duties
between belligerents and neutrals, created by international law gener-
ally, and of the diligence necessary to satisfy the obligations which
that law imposes. I cannot concur with M. Staempfii, that, because
the practice of nations has at times undergone great changes, and the
views of jurists on points of international law have often been and
still are conflicting, therefore there is no such thing as international
law, and that, consequently, we are to proceed independently of any
snch law — ^for such is the effect of his reasoning, if I understand it
rightly — according to some intuitive perception of right and wrong,
or speculative notions of what the rules as to the duties of neutrals
OQght to be. It seems to me that when we shall have ascertained the
extent to which a neutral state is responsible, according to the general
law of nations, for breaches of neutrality committed by its subjects,
and the degree of diligeuce it would be called upon to exercise under
that law, in order to avoid liability, we shall be better able to solve
the question of what constitutes due diligence in the terms of the treaty
of Washington. That treaty may have admitted a liability in the
respect of the equipnlent of ships where none existed by international
law before, as I certiiinly think it has : but the degree of diligence re-
quired of a neutral government to prevent breaches of neutrality by
its subjects must be determined by the same principles, whatever may
be the nature of the particular obligation.
' Besides the necessity of thus considering the relation of belligerents
and neutrals with reference to the subject of *' due diligence,*" we have
farther, in order to satisfy the exigency of the articles of the treaty, to
consider whether, besides in the omission of ''due diligence," Great
Britain has failed to fulfill any duty imposed by any principle of inter-
national law not inconsistent with the rules laid down. It is clear also
that, with reference to the other heads of complaint, our decision must
necessarily depend entirely on the rules of international law applicable
thereto. It seems to me, therefore, desirable, in the first place, to en-
deavor to take an al^curate survey of the law by which the relative
234 ARBITRATION AT GENEVA. '
rights of belligerents and neutrals^ are fixed and determined, as essen-
tial to the solution of the qaestions we are called on to decide.
I proceed, therefore, to consider the subject of neutral obligations in
time of war.
Neutrality may be said to be the status of a country relatively to two
Kii-ments of n^u- otfacrs which arc at war with one another, while it remains
^"''^'- at peace with both, and gives assistance to neither.
The last-mentioned condition is plainl^'^ an essential element of that
which goes before it ; for, to give assistance to either of the belligerents
would be indirectly to take a part in the war, and would afford a suffi-
cient reason to the one whose enemy was thus assisted, for having^ re-
<50urse to force to prevent such assistance from being given.
It is obviously immaterial in what form the assistance is rendered, so
obii^Htioni, of the long as its purpose and effect is to add to the means of the
tieuirai state. belligerent for the purpose either of offense or defense.
Troops, men, horses, ships, arms, munitions of war of every kind, money,
supplies — ^ift short, whatever can add to the strength of the belligerent
for the purpose either of attack or defense — are things that cannot be
supplied by a neutral state to either belligerent without forfeiting* the
character of neutrality and the rights incidental to it.
In like manner the neutral sovereign cannot allow the use of his ter-
ritory for the passage of troops of either belligerent, still less allow it
to be used by either as a base of hostile operations. He cannot lend
his ships for the transport of troops, arms, or munitions of war, or even
for the transmission of dispatches. Whatever restrictions, in the exer-
cise of his territorial lights, he imposes on the one belligerent, he mnst
impose on the other also ; for restraints — ^however lawful and proper in
themselves — ^enforced as against the one, dispensed with as regards the
other, are indirectly assistance given to the one so favored.
Whatever obligations attach by the general principles of the law of
obii,«iion«of the nations to the state or community, as a whole, are equally
•uiyvcuiof.oeutnri biudiug ott Its subjccts Or citizens. For the state or com-
munity is but the aggregate of its individual members, and
whatever is forbidden to the entire body by that law, is equally forbidden
to its component parts. In this sense, and in this sense only, can it be said
that international law— in other words, the common law of nations-
forms part of the common law of England ; for the greater part of the
rules of international law, by which nations now consent to be bound,
are posterior in date by many centuries to the formation of the common
law of England. Nevertheless, Great Britain forming part of the great
fraternity of nations, the common law adopts the fundamental princi-
ples of international law, and the obligations and duties they impose,
so that it becomes, by force of the municipal law, the duty of every man,
so far as in him lies, to observe them ; by reason of which any act done
in contravention of such obligations becomes an offense against the law
of his own country.
But the subject who thus infringes the law of his own country by
Liahiiity of the violatiug thc ncutrallty which that law enjoins him to main-
X«5l' ""^ ''^ "* tain, is amenable for his offense to the law of his own
country alone, except when actually taking part in the
war as a combatant, when, of course, he is liable to be dealt with accord-
ing to the laws of war. The offended belligerent has otherwise no hold
on him. International law knows of no relations between a state and
the .subjects of another state, but only of those which exist between
state and state. But this being so, the belligei^nt, against whom a
breach of neutrality has been committed by the subject of a neutral
OPINIONS OF SIR ALEXANDER COCKBURN. 235
state, as distinguished from the state itself, may bave a right to hold
the state responsible, and to look to it for redress. For the state, that
is, the community as a whole, is bound to restrain its individual mem-
bers from violating obligations which, as a whole, it is bound to fulfill.
Not, however, that the responsibility of the state for the acts of its
subjects is absolute and unlimited. Heason has set bounds to a respon-
sibility which would otherwise be intolerable. For it must be remem-
bered that the consequence of a violation of neutrality is the right of
the offended belligerent to treat the offen^Iing neutral as an enemy, and
declare war against him. He is not bound to accept pecuniary amends
as an alternative.
Now, reason points out that the government of a country can only be
held responsible for breaches of neutrality committed by its subjects,
when it can reasonably be expected to prevent them.
There are things which a government can prevent, and others which
it cannot. It can prevent things that are done openly and in defiance of
law. The open levying of men, and expeditions ileparting from its
territory by land or water, are things which a government would
properly be expected to . prevent, and for which, if not prevented, it
would be answerable.
But a government could not be so held in respect of things it cannot
prevent; such as the conduct of individual subjects in enlisting or
serving in the land or sea force of a belligerent, or things done clandes-
tinely or surreptitiously, so as to elude observation or detection, notwith-
standing the exercise of proper diligence to prevent the law from being
broken. But then the exercise of such diligence is part of the duty of
a government, and the condition of its immunity. If this diligence has
been wanting, a belligerent has just cause to hold the neutral state re-
sponsible for wrongful acts done by its subjects, in violation of neu-
trality, and from which he, the belligerent, has sn£fered. We are thus
brought face to face with the all-important question of what is this
"diligence'' which a government is thus bound to exercise to prevent
breaches of neutrality by its subjects. I shall endeavor presently to
grapple with that question ; but I prefer first to complete my survey of
the relative rights and obligations of belligerents and neutrals.
And as the principal complaint against the British government re-
lates to vessels of war furnished by its subjects to the Confederate
States, I shall, in the first place, apply myself to the question how far
the subjects of a neutral state can, consistently with the obligations of
neutrality, supply a belligerent with articles of warlike use in the way
of trade and business.
For, thus far, we have been dealing with assistance rendered to oae
belligerent against another, anbno adjuvandiy for the direct
puri>ose of enabling him to overcome or resist his opponent. •uh!^!!i^t»i^ro\
Very different considerations present themselves when we
have to deal with assistance furnished to a belligerent, not animo
adjuvandij with the object of enabling him to overcome his enemy,
but animo eammercandi — in the way of trade and commerce.
Here a broad and important distinction between the state and its sub-
jects presents itself. The former, generally speaking, can- Difference i*.
not, consistently with neutrality, under any circumstances, irsSi*!^;^'!;
supply to one of two belligerents articles which may be ^"^
of use to him m carrying on war. For, as governments do not engage
in trade, saveSn exceptional cases of very rare occurrence — as, for in-
stance, when a gt>vemment disposes of ships for which it has no use —
nothing supplied by a government to a belligerent can be supplied
236 ARBITRATION AT- GENEVA.
otherwise than ani7no adjuvandi; thatis^ for a pori^ose inconsistent with
neutrality. But its subjects stand, in this respect, on a very different
footing. The subject, indifferent to both the belligerent parties, may be
willing to sell toeither articles of warlike use in which he is in the habit
of dealing. Assistance, and sometimes very material assistance, is thas
afforded to a belligerent, who, by this means, is enabled to carry on
war. Is assistance thus afforded, not animo adjtivandi, but animo com-
mercandij a breach of neutrality, or is it to be considered as. within the
right of the neutral subject ?
Kow, the subjects of a neutral state having in time of peace the right
of carrying on trade with a belligerent, on what ground of reason or
justice, it may be asked, should their right of peaceful trade be taken
away, and their interests thus be damaged by reason of a war which
they have had no share in bringing about, and in which they have
no concern? The condition of neutrality, in not supplying anything to
either belligerent with the object of assisting him against the other, or
which would not be as readily supplied to the other, being observed,
what reason can be suggested why the rights of the neutral iu his rela-
tions with either belligerent, as they existed before war broke out,
should be disturbed or altered f
An Italian jurist thus writes :
II fatto della vendita deg,\i oggetti di contrabbando avvenuta in territorio ueatrale h
opera dello stato stesso nella ^ua qaalitii di persona pabblicay o invece ^ Foperato di
8no| privati cittadiui, cbe fanno di ci(> la loro abitaale professione. Nel primo caso
h fiior di dabbio cho vi sarebbo motivo di lagnanza per parte drtino dei belligeraoti,
poicbd non entra nef^li officii dello stato Tattendere a privati mercimonii, ed ogni
Buo atto ba un valore internazionale o in senso di an diritto o in senso <U nna obbliga-
zioue, cbe non si pu6 mai dissimnlare. Ma lo stesso non si pu5 dire ovo la vendita degU
oggetti, e quando sia il caso la fabbrica degli stessi, fosse il fatto particolare di privati
cittadini di quello stesso stato. In esso non potrebbe ravvisarsi un fine politico come
nell' azione pubblica del governo, non essendo lo scopo di tali cittadini che commercials
od industriale, epper5 non lesivo in mode aloano degli altrui diritti.
Se gli an tori che ban no discusso la presente questioue avessero ritennta la capitate
differenza che passa tra gli atti pubblici del governo e quelli dei privati cittadini) non
avrdbbero'al certo classiHcato come atti contrari alia condizione nentrale la vendita
fiitta in territorio nentro da privati cittadini di armi e mnnizioni da gnerra.^
Nevertheless, it is certain that the rights of a nation, as regards trade
Effect of war on ^ith auother nation, do undergo very considerable modifi-
neair.itr.de. catlous, whcu such sccoud nation engages in war ^^ih a
third ; and when it is said by some writers that neutrality is only the
prolongation of the state of peace between the neutral and the belliger-
ent, this language must be taken with considerable allowance. For, it
is certain that, as regards trade and commerce, the rights of the peace-
ful neutral undergo very serious diminution. By the admitt'Od rules of
international law, a belligerent may seize articles contraband of war iu
transit by sea from the neutral to his enemy. By blockading his ene-
my's port he may shut the commerce of the neutral even in articles not
capable of being applied to warlike use. True, say those writers who
advocate! the rights of neutrals against belligerents ; but if the rights of
the'neutral subject in respect of trade had been regulated according to
natural law, or, to speak more philosophically, according to the lav
which reason points out as for the common benefit of all, those rights
would have remained undisturbed and unaffected by the wars of others
with whom his own country remained at peace. But between distant
nations trade can be carried on only by sea. The nations most power-
ful at sea have generally been those who have waged wa&on the ocean.
* ■ — — — - _-- — ^-^^^^^^^^^^^
>Avio ^'Naova leoria dei rapporti ginridioi intemarional]^'' ci^ in GoIa,'*Coxw>
di diritto intern a z'onale/' vol. 3, p. 30. *
OPINIONS OF SIR ALEXANDER COCKBURN. 237
In such wars they have songbt to weaken their adversaries by crippling
their commerce, and to effect that object have imposed restraints on
peaceful states less powerful than themselves. Some countries have
even gone so far, in early times, as to interdict all commerce whatever
with nations with which they were at war. The sense of mankind, it is
true, revolted against pretensions so extravagant, and after a time the
restraints which belligerents were entitled to impose on neutral com-
merce were rendered less oppressive. But they still bear the impvess of
their origin, as having been imposed by the strong upon the weak. They
are manifestly in derogation of the common right of peaceful trade which
all maritime nations enjoy in time of peace, but which is thug made to
submit to restraint in order to serve the purposes of those by whom the
peace of the world is disturbed.
Let us see how these restraints on neutral commerce became settled
in time. As they existed till a very recent period, according to the
general practice of nations, they were as follows :
1. Though the belligerent might resort to the neutral territory to pur-
chase such articles as he required, even for his use in war, and the neu-
tral in selling him such articles would be guilty of no infraction of
neutrality, yet, in regard to things capable of being used in war, and
which thenceforth received the appellation of " contraband of war,'* if,
instead of the belligerent himself conveying them, the neutral under-
took to convey them, such articles, if intercepted by the adversary,
though the property of the neutral in them had not been transferred to
the belligerent, were liable to be seized and became forfeited to the
captor. If £he article was of a doubtful character, ancipitis usus, that is,
one that might be applied to purposes of peace or of war, the liability of
seizure depended on whether the surrounding circumsta^nces showed
that it was intended for the one use or the other.
2. If either belligerent possessed sufficient force at sea to bar the
access to a port belonging to his enemy, he was entitled to forbid the
neutral all access to such port for the purpose of trade, however inno-
cent and harmless the cargo with which his ship might be charged,
under the penalty of forfeiting both ship and cargo.
3. The neutral was prohibited from carrying the goods of a belliger-
ent, such goods not being protected by the neutral flag, but being sub-
ject to seizure.
4. Besides this, according to the practice of France, the neutral was
prohibited from having his goods carried in the enemy's ship, and if the
ship was taken the goods became prize.
I^tly, to enforce the rights thus assumed by powerful belligerents,
the neutral had further to submit to what was called the right of search,
in order that the belligerent might satisfy himself whether goods of the
enemy, or goods contraband of war intended for the enemy, were being
conveyed in the neutral ships.
By the wise and liberal provisions of the declaration of Paris of 1856,
the last two oppressive restraints on the trade of neutrals, mentioned
under heads 3 and 4, have, as between most of the leading nations of
the world, been done away with. The others remain. America has
not as yet formally assented to the declaration of Paris. The two rales
in question do not, however, come into play on this occasion.
Bnt the two first of the restraints put on neutral commerce occppy a
prominent place in the discussions which have occurred in the course of
this inquiry. Both of them are manifestly restraints, and Biork>deai>d co..
restraints of a Very seriovs character, on the natural free- '«'»"«»«»'»"•
dom of neutral commerce. The advantage thus acquired of preventing
238 ABBITBATION AT GENEVA.
the trade of the neutral in articles of warlike use, at a time wben that
trade is the most likely to be profitable to him, and still more that of
preveuting it in ^ny shape by the blockading of an enemy's port, i»
obviously obtained only at the expense of the peaceful rights of neutral
commerce. •
The right of blockading a port, and thereby excluding from it neutral
commerce of every sort, has been justified by assimilating it to that ex-
ercisetl by the besieger of a city or fortress, in investing it and debarring
all access to it. But the analogy is not complete, for the immediate
purpose of the besieger is to take the city or fortress^ while that of the
blockade is, not to capture the blockaded port, but to enfeeble the enemy
and diminish his means by the gradual destruction of his commerce,
which of course necessarily involves a corresponding loss inflicted on
the commerce of the neutral. And though it may be said that, just as
the besieger of a city or fortress is in occupation of the territory which
surrounds it, and is, therefore, by the law of war, master of such terri-
tory and entitled to give laws to all within its ambit, and has thns fall
right as well as power to forbid access to it, so the blockading force has
occupation of the territorial waters and can exercise a similar right iu
respect of tbem ; yet for the most part such occupation is constractive
only, and the blockading force is generally in the habit of sending crais-
ers far beyond the limits of the territorial waters, to intercept vessels
intending to enter the blockaded port.
On whatever ground the right of blockade thus conceded to belligerents
may be placed, it is obvious that it is a very serious eucroachmeut on
the freedom of the neutral in the peaceful pursuit of commerce.
In M. Calvo's work, " Le droit international^" blockade is spoken of
as ^^ la plus grave atteinte qui puisse etre port^e par la guerre an droit
des neutres.^ ''
Piore says : ^^ Le blocus est odieux et contraire ^ Pindependance des
peuples neutres ; parcequ'il n'emp^che pas seulement le commerce de
certaines mati^res d^termin^es, comme la contrebande de guerre; mm
il d^truit toute esp^ce de commerce de quelque nature que ce'soit avec
les lieux assi^g^s et bloqu^s."*
Nor must it be forgotten, with respect to the trade carried on in de-
fiance of a blockade, that the neutral owes nothing to the blockading
belligerent, who, for his own purposes, thus seeks to shut out the innoc-
uous commerce of the neutral with his enemy, regardless of the loss
and injury he is thereby inflicting on him.
The right to intercept articles of warlike use has been for the most
contmiHind of war. part trcatcd by earlier writers on international law as an
admitted encroachment on the neutral in respect of freedom of trade.
It has been justified on the score of the necessity in which the belUgerent
captor is placed, of preventing that which will be used to his own hurt from
reaching his adversary; eras arising from the law of self-defense, which
gives to the belligerent the right of stopping things which may be nsed
against him, while on their way to his enemy, and, furthermore, of con-
fiscatiiig them to his own use as a penalty on the neutral for having in-
tended to convey them to the enemy.
Looked at fi'om this point of view, it is said that the right of the bel-
ligerent to intercept this species of commerce, and the liability of the
neuti;^! ^to have his property captured and confiscated under such cir-
cumstances, do not arise out of obligations inherent in the natnre of
neutrality. They are purely conventional, and, as it were, a compromise
, ^
» Vol. ii, p. 521. * Vol. ii, p. 446.
OPINIONS OF SIR ALEXANDER COCKBURN. 239
between the- power of belligerents and the rights of neutrals; and, if
this species of trade can be said to be unlawful, it is only so 8uh modo^
it being left free to the neutral to pursue it, subject ajways to the right
of the belligerent to seize it during its transit to his enemy, if he can.
" The right of the neutral to transport," says that great jurist Chancellor
Kent, ^^ and of the hostile power to seize, are conflicting rights, and
neither party can charge the other with a criminal act."'
A different view respecting the trade of the neutral in articles gf con-
traband* of war has, however, been maintained in our day.
M. Hautefeuille^ and the writers of his school, look upon ^•«^^"^*'»'.*
the supplying of articles of contraband of war by the neutral in the way
of trade as inconsistent with the duty of neutrality, which
prohibits the rendering of assistance to a belligerent for the ^ HHuideuine.
purpose of a war in which he is engaged, extending the rule to articles
of warlike use supplied in the way of trade as much as to those fur-
nished gratuitously.
According to this view, the neutral thus guilty of a breach of the first
principle of neutrality justly incurs the penalty of his transgression in
the confiscation and loss of his property.
This doctrine is open, however, to the objection that it is inconsistent
with the practice of nations, according to which this species of trade,
has never been treated as a breach of neutrality in the full sense of the
term. It wholly fails to account for or justify the right of blockade.
Bat the importance of this difference in the views of publicists will be
more sensibly felt when we proceed to deal with the subject of the trade
of the neutral with the belligerent in the country of the neutral.
One thing is quite clear, and must not be lost sight of: Neither the
trade in contraband of war nor that carried on in defi- ^o obuntion <»
ance of a blockade constitute, practically, any violation of S^treUS't^df ?i
neutrality, so far as the government of the neutral trader is ~"'5u°'^biJjk3S
concerned. Scarce any neutral government has ever at- ^'*^
tempted to prevent its subjects from carrying on such trade ; no neutral
govemment was ever held responsible, as for a breach of neutrality, for
such trade carried on by its subjects. This is a point as to which there
has been no difference of action among governments, or difference of
opinion as to the duty of governments among writers on public law. It
is one of those things which, on the part of its subjects, a government,
according to the existing practice of nations, is not called upon to pre-
vent It is one of those things which the belligerent, who, in farthering
his own purposes is indifferent to the loss he inflicts on the neutral, nfust
submit to if he is unable to prevent it, and for which he is not entitled
to hold th^ neutral state responsible.
Speaking of the transport of articles contraband of war, M. Ortolan
states the law most correctly : „^ 0^01.0
Si c'est I'^tat neatre Inl-mdme qui fait op<Srer ce transport, soit qn'il le fasse gratnite-
ment, Boit qn'il en re^oive le prix, il devient auxiliaire de la latte, et par conslqnent U
rompt la nentralit^. La chose change 8i»ce sont les Bnjet& de cet ^tat qui, sans appni
lie lenr goavemement, font de ce ni^me transport un oijjet de leurs operations commer-
ciales. Une pniasance qui reste neutre n'est pas oblige de d^endre ce commeroe k sea
sojets, encore moins de les punir pour TAvoir lait ; seulement elle ne pent le couvrir de
sa protection. £n d'autres termes.le pavilion ne couvre pas les marchandioeB de contre-
bande de guerre, non pas mdme dans le cas otL ces marckandises appa^iennent k dee
neutres.^
Among the various articles coming under the denomination of contra-
band of war, according to the general principles of interna* a^ip, oi w^ wki
tional law, two more particularly interest us on the present
^ Kent's Commentaries, vol. i, p. 142.
"'Diplomatie de la Mer/' vol. ii, chap. 6*
240 ' ARBITRATION AT GENEVA.
occasion — ships of war and coals. Both are excluded from the category
of contraband by M. Hautefeuille, who refuses to recop^nize as such any-
thing which is not in its actually existing state ready to be used for at
tack or defense. The following passages from his work, "Des droits et
des devoirs des nations neutres," explain the views of the author on the
subject of ships, which, till armed, he refuses to consider contraband of
war, and which, whatever the construction, when unarmed, he holds to
be objects of lawful commerce : .
Je ne puis coinprendre qn'an b^timent, qp.ielle8 que eoient sa grandenrf sa forme, sa
destinatioD, 6oit un objet de contrebande de guerre. Le uavire n'est paspropre^Ia
guerro, pr^pard pour Bervir exclnsivement aux operations militaires, apte k dtre em-
ploj^^ h ces opdratioDS, immMiatement et sans aucun cbangemeut) sans ancnne addition.
Lornqu^il est d^pourvu des canons, des munitions, des armes et des bommes qui doiveot
les employer, ce n^est pas nne macbine de guerre; c'est un Y^bicnle plus ou moins
grand, plus ou moins solide, mais ce n'est qu'un y^bicule. Pour Ini donner les quali-
ty sp^iales et exclusives qui d^terminent le caract^re de contrebande de guerre, il est
n6cessaire do transporter ^ bord des canons, des armes, des muuitions, on un mot, tout
Tattirail du combat. C'est alors seulement que le b&timent devient, non une macbine
de guerre, mais nne macbine portant des instruments de guerre et susceptibles de
nnire, par'cette circonstance seulement, an bellig^rant. Mais la macbine elle-m^me,
mais le v^bicule d6nud de son armement, ne pent dtre r^put^ nuisible. An reste, il f&at
convenir que ce commerce est pen frequent, et la meilleure preuve que je puisse donner
de rinnocuite de ce n6goce est le silence du droit secondaire ^ son ^gard.^ .
* Les b&timents non arm^s, construits dans les ports neutres et vendus aux nations
engag^ dans les bostilit^s, quelles que soient leur force, la nature de lenr constmctioa,
Bont ^galement objets d'un commerce licite. lis doivent £tre r6gis par la r^gle g^o^
rale, qui est la libert^S enti^re du commerce, entre les nations neutres et les deox
belli giSrauts.^
As to coal, JVI. Hautefeuille expresses himself as follows:
La houille est sans doute un auxiliaire indispensable des macblnes, mais elle ne saa-
rait 6tre con8id6r6e comme un instrument direct et exclusif de guerre; bien loin de 1^
les usages pacifiques auxquels elle est employee sont beauooup plus importants qne
ceux qui r^sultent de V6t&t de guerre; et la consommation faite pour ces usages paci-
fiques est beaucoup plus considerable que celle n^cessit^e par les bostilit^s. D'apr^
les regies du droit primitif, la houille est done une denr6e dont le commerce doit ton-
jours rester libre.
Je ne saurais prevoir comment les trait^s h intervenir entre les penples navigatenrs
traucberont cette question ; mais ce que Je puis affirmer c'est que la houille, d'apr^ le
droit primitif, ne fait pas partie de la contrebande; c'eet que la loi secondaire ne pent
ohanger la nature des objets, ni leur donner un caract^re' qu'ils n'ont pas, d'apr^ les
principes qu'elle est appcl6e h appliquer, mais non & modifier.^
But the views of this eloquent and learned but theoretical author on
this subject are not shared by other writers. Galiani, Hiibner, (the
champion of the rights of neutrals,) Martens, Tetens, Piantanida, Ruth-
erford, Lord Stowell, Chancellor Kent, Heffter, in his able work, " Das
europaische Volkerrecht der Gegenwart," include ships among the
things which are contraband of war. Among later writers, M. Ortolan
and Sir Robert Phillimore place both ships and coal in the list of articles
of contraband. I entirely concur in thinking that a ship adapted and
intended for war is clearly an article of contraband. Such a ship is, in
fact, a floating fortress, and, when armed and manned, becomes a for-
midable and efficient instrument of warfare. Cosil, too, though in its
nature ancipitis tisusj yet, when intended to contribute to the motive-
power of a vessel, must, I think, as well as machinery, be placed in the
same category as masts and sails, which have always been placed among
articles of contraband, except by M. Hautefeuille, who, as has been
stated, insists that nothing is to be considered as contraband except
what is capable of being immediately applied to the purpose of destruc-
tive warfare.
1 Hantefenille, " Droits et devoirB des nations neutres,'' vol. ii. p. 136.
*Ibid.,pp. 143, 144.
OPINIONS OF SIR ALEXANDER COCKIUJRN. 241
It is perfectly clear, though I fear it has not always heen kept in view
ill the course of these discussions, that, with the liability to p„„.ve rommerr*
the seizure and loss of the cargo, (in some instances, it is «>f 'i**^ "^^-t'*'-
said, of the ship,) if he transmits contraband of war to the enemy of the
belligerent captor, (and to the loss both of ship and cargo if he attempts
to force a blockade,) ends, according to the existing practice of nations,
all restraint on the trade and commerce of the neutral. In his own
coantry, in his own markets, in his own factories, the neutral may, ac-
cording to the practice of nations, sell articles to the belligerent which,
if sent by sea, would be contraband of war. Theoretical writers are not,
indeed, of one mind on this subject. While the great majority of authors
are agreed as to the right of the neutral to sell, in the way of trade, to
the belligerent resorting to his market, whatsoever the latter desires to
bay, if the neutral has it to sell, whether the article be of an innocent
character or contrabtlnd of war in its most destructive form, a few
authors have recently written in a diiferent spirit.
No writer on international law before Galiani had ventured to assert that
the neutral was prohibited from selling, in his own country, to a bellig-
erent, articles which, if sent out of his country by sea, would be liable
to siezure as contraband of war. His doctrine to that efi'ect was vigor-
ously refuted by his two distinguished countrymen, Lampredi and Azuni,
and was tor a time abandoned as untenable ; but it has been revived in
our day. Let us review the leading authorities. The quej^tion is not
only of interest to the jurist, but one which will be found to be impor-
tant to some of the decisions of this tribunal.
Lampredi, in his work on neutral commerce, refutes the opinion of
Galiani. On the general subject, ^[ quote from Peuchets'
French translation, not having the original before me,) he '""p"^^*'
writes as follows :
Lonqn'nne fois I'on a etabli la soule loi que les peuplcs ueutres doivt^iit observer
p«'iidaiit la jjiierre, il devient inutile de deniander qiidleB doivent ^'tre Ics limites du
ronimerce qu'ib fout en conscqnence de leur neutrality, parcequ'on pent repondre qu'il
u'eu doit avoir ancune, ct qu'ils penvent le faire de la inenie maniere qu'iia le faisaient
rn temps de paix, observant souleuient nne exacte impartiality pendant tout le temps
lie la guerre. Il rCy aura done aucane enptce de marchandises qu ih ne puisaent rendreet
porter aux beUigfranta ei Von nc pouirapait len empecher de Itnr vendre ou loner des navireSf
{Kinrvn <iu'ils ne refusent point a Tun ce qu'ils accordent ti Tautre. Devantet pouvant
siiivre l<^gitimement leur commerce comnie en t^mps de paix, il ne doit y avoir aucnne
diAtinctioti de marchandises, d'ar^scnt, d'armes, et d'autres munitions de guerre : la
vente et le transport de ces divers objets dans les places des bcllig^rants doivent <Hre
permis, et ne point porter atteiute ti la neutrality, pourvu qu'U u'y ait ni faveur, ni
pn^fd^rence, ui esprit de parti.'
In chapter v, page 57, he tre*ats the question whether neutrals
may sell everj' kind of merchandise within the neutral territory to a
belligerent, as one which no jurist anterior to Galiani had ever thought
of bringing into controversy, all their discussions being confined to the
f^rwge of contraband to the enemy. It is not, he explains, till they
have left the neutral territory that articles, though of warlike character,
assume the character of contraband. In chapter vii, page 72, he says :
Le caracterc de contrebandc ne vient done pas, anx marcbandises, de Tusage qu'on
l^fut en faire dans la guerre, muis do tout autre source. Aussi longterops qu'elles sont
^\iT le territoire ueutre^elles ne ditlerent pas des an tres marchandises; elles s'y veudent
•^t h*y achetent de la meme maniere et sans aucune dill^rence. Deux circonstances font
prendre h ces marcbandises le caractere de contrabandc: 1, qnVUes soient passdes b, la
paissance de rennenii, ou a moins destinies ii y passer ; 2, (ju'elles soient sorties dn ter-
ritoire neutro. Alors elles devicnnent choses hoHtile&y re« hofttilea ; elles prennent le
caractere de marcbandises de contrebando ; et si elles sont trouvi%s bors do toute juri-
diction souveraine, comme, par excmple, si Ton les trouvait en pleine mer, elles peu-
* ** Commerce des nentres," part i, chap. 3, p. 3*2.
10 n
242 ARBITRATION AT GEXEVA.
vent Atre legitimement arretoes et confisqiu'es par Tennemi, quel que soit le pavilion
qui les couvre, non pas parce que ce soit des instruments ou provisions de guerre, mais
parco que ce sont des choses appartenants k Tennemi, ou au nioins parce qu'elles sont
destin<^es a devenir sa propri<^t6 et a accroitre ses forces. D'ou 11 r^Jiulte que le souve-
rain qui permet, sur son territoire, le commerce libre de toute»sort€9 d'ohjets ne passe pas
les droits de souveraiuetd, et les puissances belligdrantes ne peuvent s'en plaindre ni
I'accuser de donner la main a la veutc des marcbaudises de contrebande, qui, snr sou
temtoire, ne peuvent jamais avoir ce caractere, et ne peuvent en porter le nom que
lorsquVlles sont de venues ou destinies a devenir la pi*opriet«5 de Tennerai, et sorties du
territoire ou ellcs ont 6t6 ache tees.
In another work Lampredi, speaking of neutrality, says :
Et quia neutrius partis esse debet, et abello omnino abstinere, nentri etiam suppedi-
tabit quie directe ad bellum referuntur. Suppeditare bic loci transvehere ad alterutrom
liostem significat ; nam si qua gens instrumenta bellica, et coetera supra memorata
utrisque bellantibus tequo pretio veluti merces vendat, ueutralitatem non violat. Ad
banc necpssariam mercatura^ distinctionem animum non advertisse eos, qni de hac re
tarn prolixe scripserunt, manifeste patet ; maxime enim inter se difierre videntnr ei-
portatio mercium ad hostem meum ab amico vel neutro populo facta, et eoram ven-
ditio, qua3 ad bellum uecessaria esse possunt.^
Azuni, who wrote shortly after Lampredi, maintains the same doc-
trine. In his work ** Systeme universel de principes de
droit maritime," (ch. ii, art. 3,) he says :
Le commerce g6n<?ral passif, ou la vente impartiale sur le propre territoire des nen-
tree, de marcbaudises, denr<^es; ou manufactures, de ioute esphce, sera tonjours permit,
ponrvu que le souverain n'ait pas fait un traitd particnlier avec nn des bellig^rants
dont les snjets vienneut faire des achats et des provisions sur le territoire neutrcset
qu'il ne se m^le pas des achats, des ventes, et des autres contrats qui transmettent la
propridt^, qu'il n'ordonne pas qu'on remplisse les magasins de provisions de guerre, et
ne fasse pas met^re ses navires a la voile pour les transporter sur le territoire da bel-
lig^rant. En prot<^geant <5galement le commerce de son pays, en permettant & ses
sujets de continuer lenr commerce de la m6me raani^reet avec la m^me liberty qa*avant
la guerre, il ne fait qu'user de droits incontestables, qui ne peuvent ^tre limit^sqaepar
des conventions sp^ciales, expressdment ou tacitemeut faites.
After combating the reasoning of Galiani, he adds :
II est ndcessaire que je r^p^te ici le principe incontestable (jue j'ai prt'c<?deDiment
rapports, qu'en suivant le droit conventionnel de TEurope, les neutres ne peuvent
porter les choses qui sont sp^cialemeut propres h la guerre, et qui y sont directeuieut
employ<$s, mais qu'ils peuvent sans incouv<5uient, selon le droit universel des gens, les
vendre comme marchandise sur leur propre territoire k quiconque se pri^sente pour les
aeheter, puisqu'ils le font sans partiality, et sans montrer de faveur jdut^t pour uue
partie belligdrante que pour I'autre.
Reddie, in his " Revsearches Historical and Critical in Maritime and
International Law," cites these views with concurrence and approba-
tion.
In Wheaton's History of International Law, the author speaks of the
refutation of Galiani bv Lampredi as superfluous, as an ''idle ques-
tion."
Masse, in his work " Le droit commercial dans ses rapports avec le
droit des gens," after maintaining the right of the belli-
gerent to intercept contraband, adds :
Mais la th?*se change s'il s'agit d'un commerce passif. SMI est d^fendu au neutre de
porter des armes et des munitions aiix belligorants, parcequ'alors il devieut Tauxiliaire
de I'un et Pennemi de Tautre, il uc lui e.st ytas dofendu de vendre imi>artialeuient stur
son territoire des objets n(^ce>jsaires a la gnerre, parceque sou territoire est ouvert a
tons, que tons peuvent venir y rhercher ce dont ils ont besoin, et que le neutre qui se
borne a vendre chez lui, :\ la diif<^rencc de celui qui porte ses marcbaudises au belli-
g6rant, n'est pas teuu de rechercher qui les lui acbt'te, pour qui elles sont achct^as, et
quelle est leur destination ulterieure. C'est alors qu'il est absolument vrai de dire quo
les neutres peuvent continuer pendau t la guerre le commerce quMls faisaient peudaut
* " Theorem, juris publici universi," p. 3, cap. 12, $9, n. 4.
OPINIONS OF SIR ALEXANDER COCKBURN. 243
h paix, et que la neutralit^S est la continuation d'un ^tat autorieur cpii ne modifie paA
la <;uerr6 ^ laquelle le neutre, ([ui ouvre son inarcbe i\ toutes les nations, ne x^reud
aiicaue part directe on indirecte.'
Again :
8ur an territoire neutre, 11 n'y a pas de niarchandise de contrebande ; toutes y sont
]ibres. Klles nedevienneut contrebande qu^iu moment oti elles en sortent avec direc-
tion pour an lieu dout leur nature lea exclut. C'est alors qu'elles torn bent sous la juri-
(liction des bellig^rants contre lesquels elles sont dirig<^es. Jusque-lii et taut qu'elles
rentent en un lieu oil elles ne peuveut leur nuire, ils n'ont pas le droit de s'occuper des
transactions pacifiques dont elles peuvent dtro I'objet. Sans doute, la guerre donne
line nouvelle impulsion an commerce passif des objets utiles i\ la guerre ; mais cette
impulsion n'est pas du fait des neutres, elle est du fait des belligdrants, qui, apr^s avoir
cux-uidmes produit des circoustances nouvelles, ne peuvent trouver niauvais que les
neutres en profitent dans les limites de leurs droits et de leur territoire.^
M. Ortolan observes as follows :
("e8t seulement lorsque de telles marchandises son t en cours de transport pour une desti-
nation hostile qu'elles deviennent contrebande militaire, Lorsqu^un (?tat ^ ortou.
nentre laisse ses sujets se livrer au commerce passif de ces mdmes objets,
<''rat-^ire,lorsqu'il permet k tousles belligiSrants indistinctement de venir les acheter
Mur son territoire pour les transporter ensuite oil bou leur semble, h leurs frais et k
lean risques, sur lenrs propres navires marchandgf il ne fait pas autre chose que laisser
H Hccomplir un acte licite ; on no pent ^as dire qu'il prenue part ^ la guerre parce qu'il
laiiue ses porta libres, et parce quUl conserve k toutes les nations le droit qu'elles avaient
avant la guerre d'y entrer avec leurs b&timents marchands pour s'y approvisionuer,
par la voie du commerce, des marchandises dont elles out besoin ; les veudeurs eux-
perues ne soot pas responsables de 1' usage ult^rieur qui sera fait de ces marchandises ;
ilxne sont pas teuusde connaltre ni pour qui elles sont achetes ni la direction qu'ou
lenr r^rve.
Le droit conventionnel est d'accord avec ces principcs ; il ne defend pas la veute im-
partiale faite sur un territoire neutre des marchandises propres k la guerre. Mais si
ces secouro effectifs en nature, que Tun des combattants xjent prendre et exporte ti
W8 propres risques, 6taient fouruis par l'6tat neutre lui-mdme ; di, par exemple, des amies,
des projectiles, de la poudre 6taient tirds de ses arsenaaux ou de ses manufactures
pnbliques, ce ne serait plus \k un commerce priv^, et par consequent il y aurait atteinte
j;rave k la neutralit^.^
Heftier, in his " Volkerrecht der Gegenwarf (I cite from Bergson's
translation,) p. 315, says : Heater
En CO qui concerne les objets de contrebande, la vente faite aux bellig<?rants en terri-
toire oeutre ne saurait dtre consid^r^e comnie un acte illicite et contraire aux devoirs
<Ie la neutrality ; ce n'est que leur transport qui en rend responsable.
Professor Sandona, of Siena, "Trattato di diritto internazionale mo-
derno,'' comparing passive with the active commerce of nentrals, says :
Dico adunque, che si crede a torto che faccia opera ad un di presso egualo, chi vende
w^uplicemeute nel proprio paese quanto immediatemeute si riferisoe ai mezzi di fare
la ^ruerra, e chi trasporta questi mezzi sui mercati o nelle piazze dei belligerauti. II
primo veude le sue merci nel proprio paese, ove non vi 6,stando al puro diritto razio-
nale,alcuna legge che gliene vieti il tratUco. £ appunto perchi^ dimora in esso,e nicute
<»^ta a questo couimercio, egli nou fa uso chedella sua libertai, che d'altra parte iincht^
rimane nel paese nativo, nessuu principe straniero puo limitare La sola
I'^i^a che si pu6 dimandare da lui ^ questa, che sia disposto a vendere egualmente a
'jbiiioque si presenta le sue merci, outle evitare il pericolo di offendere Timparzialitii, a
oni i neutrali sono tenuti.
To these authors Professor Bluntschli has added the weight of his
(inthority. ProreworUIuntachli.
in his work entitled " Das moderne Volkerrecht," or, as it is calletl
in the French translation, " Le droit international codifi^,'^ he writes :
l^ fait qn'un dtat neutre fournit on laisse fonrnir h un des belligdrants des armes ou
<ln iuat<^riel de guerre const itue dgalemeot une violation des devoirs des neutres.
» Vol. i, p. 203.
2lbid., p. 205.
3 *' Diplomatie de la mer," vol. ii, p. 180.
244 ARBITRATION AT GENEVA.
Par cuntro, si des partioiilierH, oaDS avoir rintention do voDir en aide a Tod dfsbfl-
ligdrantSf iui foumissentA, titre d'entrepritie coinmerciale des arnies on du oiat6ri«l de
gnerre, ils conrcnt le risque que ces objets soient contisqudes par Fadversaire comme
contrebande do guerre ; les gouvernenient'S neutres ne uiauqueiit pas h leur devoir eo
tol<$rant le commerce d'objets qui sout eonsid6r<^a comme coutrebaude de guerre. . . .
Celui qui transporte de la confrebaude de guerre k Tune des parties Dellig<^ranteH
s'expose }\ voir ces objets coDfisqu<^s. Mais I'c^tat neutre u'a pas de motifs de b'opposer
k rexp<^dition de la controbande de guerre. Dans les discussions de la loi ani^ricame
sur la neutraiit<^, le president Jefferson dtVlara en 1793 que la guerre ^trang^re ue pri-
vait point lea particuliers dn droit de fabriquer, de vendre on d'exporter des armes;
seulemeut les citoyens amt^ricains, ^joutait-il, exercent ce droit k leurs risques el
p^rils.^
The opinion of Galiani has, however, been again revived by two or
three writers in our own d^ys.
Among these, Sir Robert Phillimore, in his work on International Law,
vol. iii, § ccxxx, speaking *' as to the permitting the
s.r R. ph.ihmor*. ^^^^ ^^ munitions of war to a belligerent within the terri
tory of the neutral," writes :
If the fonntains of international justice have been correctly pointed out in a former
volume of this work, and it be the true character of a neutral to abstain from every act
which may better or worsen the condition of. a belligerent^ the unlawfulness of aoy
snch sale is a necessary conclusion from these premises.
What does it matter where the neutral supplies one belligerent with the means of
attacking another t How does the question of locality, according to the principles of
eternal Justice and the reason of the thing, affect the advantage to one belligerent or
the injury to the other accruing from this act of th«> alleged neutral f Is the canDon
or the sword, or the recruit who is to use them, the less dangerous to the beUi<!ei'em
because they were purchased, or he was enlisted, within theliniit^s of neutral territory'
Surely not. Surely the locus in quo is wholly beside the mark, except, indeed, that ttie
actual conveyance of the weapon or thn soldier may evidence a bitterer and more de-
cided partiality, a more unquestionable and active participation in the war.
MM. Pistoye and Duverdy also, in their "Trfiite des prises mm
times," express, thongh with less energy than the learned author last
mentioned, a like view.
M. Hautefeuille, who, as we have seen, not only refuses to admit ves-
sels equipped for war, if not armed, into the list of contni-
M. Hauufunii.. jj^ud of wur, but also holds that they are legitinuite artidesi
of neutral commerce, nevertheless maintains that what is called llit
passive trade of the neutral in articles of warlike use is inconsistent witli
neutrality. His reasoning is as follows :
Cette question a dtc traitee avec beancoup dYtendue p.ir Lampredi et par Azuni; h
doctrine de ciw deux auteurs a ete combattu par Galiani. Avaiit (rexaiiitner Topiuioi
de ces publicistos, il nie paratt inclispensable de rappeler les biuses de la discussion. «it
poser des principes ([ui, d'apres la loi primitive, doivent la doniiner. Ces principes on
deji\ 6{(S i'^tablis. lis penvent se resunier on deux droits et en deux devoirs. Les dnui
sout: I. I-iberto et independaiice du pen pie neutre dans son commerce, en teiiq*^ <I
guerre, memo avt'c les deux belligerants. 2. Libert^ et ind<?pendanc« absoliu-^ tV
neutre sur son propre territoire. Les deux devoirs sout correlatifs aux cUnix dn»its. il
les limiteiit. Co sout: 1. L'inipartialile ; *2. L'abstentiou de tons actes directs <1
guerre, et par conse(iuent do fournir aux belligi^rants les armes et les munitions J
guerre. I>e ces droits il resulte, sans doute, quo la nation pacitif}ue a le imuvtiir tl
commercer librement avecchaeun des bellij;erants, uon seulenient sur son propre terr
toire, mais encore partout aillours. sans qu'aucun d eux puisse s\y opponer ; mai»<
droit est borne par le devoir impose an neutre de ne fournir, ui k Tun ui t^ Tautre, d<
instruments actuellement et uniquement destine^ a la guerre.
Cette limite niise par laloi primitive j\ la liberte des nations, sVtend-elle k tout le c t
inorce, an commerce pnssif comme au commerce actif f Lo devoir du neutre convict
t-il uniquement i\ ne pas transporter les objets do contrebande dans les port^^ desbt-lli
orants ; on au contraire ne piobibe-t-il pas le fait de vendre, de fournir eea objets .a e« i
qui doivent h'en servir p<mr liapper un ennemi f A mesyenx, la r^ponse li cette doul
([uestion ne ]>eut etredouteuse. Le devoir impose aux nations, quidesirent ne pas preiid
par aux lio8tilites,et jouir de la paix au milieu des maux do la guerre, est de ue p:is fomi
1 Section 765, p. 385; with Notes 1 and 2,
OPINIONS OF SIR ALEXANDER COCKBURN. 245
dt»aniie8 aux mains de ceax qai doivent s'eu serTir pour frapper. La loi naturelle, qui
impose ce devoir, u*a pas fait de distinction entre le commurce actif tit le cummerce
passif. Elle ne pouvait en faire, car Pun et I'autre ont le m6nie r^sultat, celui de don-
Deril-an des belligdrants le moyoa de nuire it, Tautre. Ce devoir est absolu; la re-
striction qu'il inipone s'dtend h, toutes los mani^res de fonrnir & Tun des coin bat tan ts
Taroie doiit il veut frapper sou ennemi. C'est un devoir d4inmauit<^ ; et il u'est pas
nioins inliumiiin de vendre des instruments homicides dans le port de Livourne que de
les transporter dans celui de Londres ou de Marseille. La Vuute des denrdes de con-
trebaDde anx belli^^rants est done probibde sur le territoiro nentre, de la m6me
maui^re et par le m6nie motif que le transport de ces denrees dans les ports des peu-
ples en guerre. *
Professor Casanova, in his recent work, " Del Diritto Internazionale,"
adopts the views of M. Hautefeuille.
Tbis difference of opinion arises from the different point of view from
vhicli each party considers the question. The one party assume that
to supply a belligerent with articles of warlike use, though in the way
of trade, is to take part in the war ; assuming which, they say with
trnth, that it is the same thing whether the o^ectionable articles are
sold to the belligerent in the country of the neutral or in his own. The
other party, starting from the principle that, according to natural jus-
tice, the rights of the neutral should be left free and untouched by the
wars of others, look on the existing restraints ou the freedom of his
commerce as encroachments on his rights, and considering these re-
straiuts as arising entirely from convention, deny the illegality of any
trade, which the actual practice of nations does not prevent. The great
authority of Chancellor Kent, and of the majority of writers, is in
favor of the latter view.
But, in truth, the question does not depend on the lucubrations of
learned professors or speculative jurists. However authoritatively these
authors may take upon themselves to write, and however deserving
their speculations may be of attention, they cannot make the law. In-
ternational law is that to which nations have given their common assent,
and it is best known as settled by their common practice.
Now, in all wars, neutrals have traded at home and abroad in articles
contraband of war, subject always in the latter case to the Practice m forn.«
cliauce of capture and confiscation. As I have already '"*"•
said, no government has ever been sought to be made responsible on
that account. Assuredly, no nation has ever asserted the freedom of
commerce in this respect more broadly than the United States, or acted
op to its principles with greater pertinacity.
On the breaking out of the war between France and England in 171^,
after a proclamation of neutrality by General Washington, then Presi-
dent, Mr. Jefferson, then Secretary "of State, thus writes to Mr. Ham-
mond, minister of Great Britain to the United States :
The purchase of arms and military accouterments by an agent of the French govern-
ment in this country, with an intent to export them to France, is the
»nbject of another of the memorials; of this fact we are equally unin-
formed an of the former. Our citizens have been always free to make,
veDd, and export arms. It is the constant occupation aud livelihood of some of them.
Tosappress their callings, the only means perhaps of their subsistence, because a war
<'xi8t8 iu foreign and distant countries, in which we have no concern, would scarcely be
expected. It would be hard in principle, and Impossible in practice. The law of na-
tioDS, therefore, respecting the rights of those at peace, does net require from them
SQch an internal derangement in their occupations. It is satisHed with the external
penalty pronounced in the President's proclamation, that of confiscation of such por-
tion of these arms as shall fall into the hands of any of the belligerent powers on their
way to the ports of their enemies. To this penalty our citizens are warned that they
will be abandoned, and that even private contraventions may work no inequality be-
tween the parties at war, the benefit of them will be left equally free and open to
American authori-
ties.
1 Britith Appendix, vol. v, p. :^42.
246 ARBITRATION AT GENEVA.
Tbe collectors of the customs at the diflferent ports were instructed
that —
The purchasing and exporting from the United States, by way of merchandise, arti-
cles commonly culled contraband, being generally warlike instruments and storoN. h
free to all parties at war, and is not to be interfered with. If onr own citizens undertake
to carry them to any of these parties, they will be abandoned to the penalties which
the laws of war authorize.^
In 1842, Mr. Webster writes :
It is not the practice of nations to undertake to prohibit their own subjects from
trafficking in articles contraband of war. Such trade is carried on at the risk of thoM>
engaged in it under the liabilities and penalties prescribed by the law of nations or
particular treaties. If it be true, therefore, that citizens of the United States have
been engaged in a commerce by which Texas, an enemy of Mexico, has been supplied
with arms and munitions of war, the Government of the United States, neverthelesji,
was not bound to prevent it, and could not have prevented it without a manifest de-
parture from the principles of neutrality, and is in no way answerable for the conse-
quences. Such commerce is left to its ordinary fate, according to the law of nations.'^
In his message to the American Senate, in December, 1854, President
Pierce declares :
The laws of the United states do not forbid their citizens to sell to either of the
belligerent powers articles contraband of war, or to take munitions of war or soldiern
on board their private ships for transportation ; and, although in so doing the individ-
ual citizen exposes his property or person to some of the hazards of war, his acts do
not involve any breach on national neutrality, nor of themselves implicate the Govern-
ment.
Thus, during the progress of the present war in Europe, our citizens have, without
national responsibility therefor, sold gunpowder and arms to all buyers regardless of
the destination of those articles. Our merchantmen have been, and still continue to
be, largely employed by Great Britain and France in transporting troops, provisions,
and munitions of war to the principal seat of military operations, and in bringin<;
home the sick and wounded soldiers; but such use of our mercantile marine is not
interdicted either by the international or by our municipal law, and therefore does
not compromise our neutral relations with Russia.^
Chancellor Kent, in his Commentaries, says :
It was contended by the French nation in 1796 that neutral governments were bound
to restrain their subjects from selling or exporting articles contraband of war to the
belligerent powers. But it was successfully shown, on the part of tbe United St-ates, that
neutrals may lawfully sell at home to a belligerent purchaser, or carry themselves to tbe
belligerent powers, contraband articles, subject to the right of seizure in iranMitu, This
right has since been explicitly declared by the judicial authorities of this country. The
right of the neutral to transport, and of the hostile power to seize, are connicting
rights, and neither party can charge the other with a criminal act.*
Jn 1802, on the occasion of the French invasion of Mexico, complaint
was made by M. llomero, the representative of the Mexican government
at Washington, of the French being allowed to purchase horses and
mules in the United States for the purpose of the war. A long corre-
spondence ensued between M. llomero and Mr. Seward, in which the
latter vigorously maintains what he calls ^^ the settled and traditional
policy- of the country.'^ He says :
It is not easy to see how that policy could be changed so as to conform to the views
of M. Komero without destroying all neutral commerce whatsoever. If Mexico shall pre-
scribe to us what merchandise we shall not sell to French subjects, because it may be
employed in military operations against Mexico, France must equally be allowed U>
dictate to us what merchandise we shall allow to be shipped to Mexico, because it
might be belligerently used against France. Every other nation which is at war
would have a similar right, and every other commercial nation would be bound to
> British Appendix, vol. v., p. 269.
- Letter to Mr. Thompson, Webster's Works, vol. vi, p. 452 ; British Appendix, vol.
V, p. 333.
^British Appendix, vol. v, p. 333.
* Kent's Commentaries, vol. i, p. 142.
OPINIONS OF SIR ALKXANDER COCKBIJRN. 247
ivsjK«ct it as mnch<i8 the United States. Commerce, iu that case, instead of being free
or independent, would exist only at the caprice of war.^
As re;2fards the purchase of articles of war,^ the United States have
not scrupled to purchase arms and munitions of war in p„^hR«e «f c<>r.
other countries when need required it. At the commence- ![rX';.mlnro'i^^
ineDt of the civil war, the Government being short of arms, ^"'i'J^^*^«»
agents ^ere sent to England to procure them in large quantities. Other
agents bought arms in diiferent countries on the continent. Figures
are given in the British counter-case which appear to bear out the state-
lueut that "the extra supplies of warlike stores thus exported to the
northern ports of the United States during the civil war are estimated
to represent a total value of not less than £2,000,000, of which £1,500,000
was the value of muskets and rifles alone." Mr. Adams, in a conversa-
tion with Earl Russell on the 22d May, 1862, when the latter, in answer
to his remonstrances as to supplies sent out from Great Britain to the
Confederate States, referred to the large supplies of similar materials
obtained on the part of the United States, naively answered that " at
one time a quantity of arms and military stores had been bought, as a
purely commercial transaction, for the use of the Federal Army, but
that the practice had been discontinued at his suggestion, because it
prevented him from pressing his remonstrances against a very different
class of operations carried on by friends and sympathizers with the
rebels, and that the United States had, instead, bought largely from
Austria;" "because,'' adds Mr. Adams, "that government had never given
any countenance to the insurgents."^
It thus appears that the continental governments also did not con-
sider the sale of arms by their subjects as any infringement of the law
of nations.
It seems to me, therefore, that the law relating to contraband of
war must be considered not as arising out of obligations of k^uu of <Ji..u.
neutrality, but as altogether conventional; and that by the •'""•
existing practice of nations, the sale of such things to a belligerent by
the neutral subject is not in any way a violation of neutrality. Then,
how stands the matter as to ships of war f In principle, is
there any dilference between a ship of war and any other *"*" *^'^'''
article of warlike use f I am unable to see any. Xor can I discover
any difference in principle between a ship equipped to receive her
armament, and a ship actually armed. A ship of war implies an armed
ship ; for a ship is not actually a ship of war till armed. Of the authors
1 have cited, and who hold shii)S ot war to be contraband of war, no
one of those who wrote before these disputes between the United States
and Great Britain had arisen, with the exception of M. Ilautefeuille,
makes any distinction between ships equipped to receive their arma-
ments, and ships actually armed. M. Ilautefeuille, who, as we have
f^en, refuses to a ship equipped for armament, but not armed, the
character of contraband, treats the equipping and arming as a viola-
tion of neutrality; but he gives no reason and cites no authority, and
seems to me herein — I say it with the utmost respect — inconsistent
with himself.
Professor Bluntschli, in the woik already cited, lays down, on the
subject of ships furnished to a belligerent by the subjects p„,fr,.„r ni«nt.
of a neutral power, the following rules: *'''
' British Appendix, vol. v, p. 336.
- British count«r-case, pp. .5*2-54. British Appendix, vol. vi, pp. 153, 155, 158, 173.
t'nited Slates Documents, vol. i, p. 536.
248 ARBITRATION AT GENEVA.
In Tirticle 763 of bis proposed code, be says :
L'<^tat neutre ne doit pas seiileraent s'abstenir de livrer des Ucirires de guerre si I'line
des puissances bellig^rantes ; il est aussi tcnu d'exercer nne siirveillaDce rigoureuse et
d*enip6cher que des particuliere n'annent des uavires de guerre sur son territoire et no
les livrent ii Vuu des bellig<Srants.
In a DOte be adds :
En temps do paix, un ^tat pent ovideuinicnt vendre des uavires de guerre j\ qp autre,
oil recourir h I'industrie privi^o des c^tats Strangers. Mais pendant la guerre, la four-
niture de navires de guerre constitue «5videmraent un appui et un renfort accord^ aiix
bellig^raats. Bi Tintentiou de le faire rcsulte des circonstances, on devra consid^rer
ces actes coinlue coutraires aux devoirs dea neutre**, et I'etat \6i6 pourra agir en coq3<^-
quence. *
In article 764 be says :
II sufflt que I'inteution de veuir en aide a I'uii des belligcrant« soit inanifeste, ponr
quo I'etat neutre soil teuud'iuterveuir, alors uieine que rarmeraentdu iiavire de goerre
ou du coi'saire ne serait que pr6par<^ ou coiumeucd.
In a note be subjoins :
II n*est pas u(?cesHairo que lo naviro soit dcjii arrao. Lorsque les coustructeurs, tout
en prdtendaut trt^ter un naviro de commerce, out Tintentiou de I'armer en guerre, et
lorsque cette intention pout 6tre constat<Se, ou dn moins est vraisemblable, cet act<>
constitne nne violation des lois sur la neutrality. Mais lorsque cette inteution nepeut
pas Hrvi ddniontrde, on ne saurait incrimiuer le fait de transformer en uavire de gaerre
un naviro de commerce coustruit sur un cbantier neutre et achet<S plus tanl par au
ndgociant d^un des pays belligdrants. ( VVbeaton, Intern. Law, p. 562.) Il en etii autre-
ment lorsqu^un navir& de guerre est venda a Van dea belligerants d Hire d'entrepriae pttrennent
commerciale ou induatrielle ; il y aura dans ce cas oontrebande de guerrCf maia cet acte ne con-
stituera pas nne violation des devoirs des neutres, ^
1 must observe tbat tbese rules, wbicb are of a very stringent cbar-
acter, are not supported by any reasoning of tbe autbor, or by any jurid-
ical autbority. I migbt add, tbat tliere is no ground for saying that
tbey bave been generally accepted as international law. Even so dis-
tinguisbed a man as Professor Bluntscbli cannot give laws to tbe world
from tbe professorial cbair. Moreover, as I understand bim. Professor
Bluntscbli draws a distinction between the sale of sbips witb the in-
tention of assisting a belligerent, and of sbips sold in tbe course of a
purely commercial transaction.
Tbe first two cited articles would, from tbe general terms in which
tbey are framed, appear to apply to sbips of war by wbomsoever they
maybe supplied to tbe belligerent; but from tbe note to section 764
and tbe reference to section 765, bereinbefore cited, as to the sale of
arms and munitions of war in tbe country of tbe neutral, I gatber that
tbe professor means to draw a distinction between sbips made over to
a belligerent, wbetber by sale or otherwise, for tbe purpose of assisting
bis cause, and sbips of war sold to a belligerent by neutral subjects in
tbe way of trade.
Tbis is tbe view taken by Mr. Dana in a note to bis edition of " Whea-
^^ ton's Elements of International Law," wbicb bas been re-
printed in tbe documents appended to tbe American case:
Our rules do not interfere with houa-flde commercial dealings in contraband of war.
An American merchant may build and fully arm a vessel, and provide her with stores,
and offer her for sale in our own market. If he does any acts as an agent or serrantof
a belligerent, or in pursuance of au arrangement or understanding with a beUigereut,
that she shall be employed in hostilities when sold, he is guilty. He may, withoat
violating our law, send out such a vessel, so equipped, under the flag aud papers of his
own country, with no more force of crew than is suitable for navigation, with no right
to resist search or seizure, and to take the chances of capture as contiaband merchan-
dise, of blockade, and of a market in a belligerent port. lu such ctwe, the extent and
character of the equipments is as immaterial as in the other class of cases. The intent
» Section 763 and note 1, p. 383.
^ Section 764, p. 384.
OPINIONS OF SIR ALEXANDER COCKBURN. * 249
is all. Hie act is open to great snspicionB and abuse, and the line may often be scarcely
traceable ; yet the principle is clear enough. Is the intent one to prepare an article of
contraband merchandise, to be sent to the market of a belligerent, subject to the chances
of capture and of the market ? Or, on the other hand, is it to fit out a vessel which
shall leave our port to cruise, immediately or ultimately, against the commerce of a
friendly nation ? The latter we are bound to prevent ; the former the belligerent must
prevent. ' , • .
Professor Gola, of Parma, in a recent work, observes :
Lo stesso dicasi ove si trattasse di costruzioni di navi : I'atto lede la neutrality, ove
I'impresa si eseguisca dal g^verno, t; iuvece uu' opera d'industria ove si compia da pri-
vati iniprenditori nei loro cantieri.-
M. Ortolan, who had made no such distinction in the former edition
of bis work, '' Sur la diplomatie de la raer," in the last edi- opinion or >l or-
tioDof that work has, with reference to this subject, thefol- ^''"•
lowing, I cannot help thinking, somewhat extraordinary doctrine :
Si Ton suppose nn navire construit sur le territoire neutre, non pas sur commando
d'un belligdraut on par suite d^nn traits ostensible on dissimul^ aveo ce bellig6rant,
mm en vue d^iu dessein quelconque, soit de navigation couimerciale, soit tout autre,
et que ce Eavire, d^jii par lui-m6me propre ^ la guerre on de nature k Hre convert! 4
cet nsage, une fois sorti des ports de la nation neutre, soit venda, dans le conrs de sa
navigation, occasion nellement, k I'un des bellig6rants, et se mette li naviguer en des-
tination directe pour ce belligcrant : un tel navire dans de telles circoustances tombe
iiniqaement (m>us le coup des regies relatives ii la coutrebande do guerre. II est si'ijet k
etre arr^i'^ et confisqn^ par I'ennemi qniponrra s'en emparer, mats saus qu'aucun grief
(le violation des devoira de la neutrality puisse sortir de ce fait contre r<5tat neutre
))onr n'avoir pas d<Sfendu k ses nationaux de telles ventes on ne les avoir pas rdprimdes.
C'est une operation de tratic qui a eu lieu, trafic de contrebande de guerre, dont aucune
'-ircoDstance particuli^re n^est venue changer le ca^act^^e.
Tel flit, en I'ann^e 1800, le cas du uavire am^ricain le Brutus, capture par les Anglais
et jQg6 de bonne prise par la cour d'amiraut<^ d'Halifax.
• • « • • »
Mais la situation change; la contrebande de guerre n'est plus la question principale;
'lantres regies dn droit des gens intervicnuent et modiBent profonddment la solution,
M Tod suppose qu'il s'agisse de b^timents de guerre construits, armds on dquip<Ss sur un
territoire nentre pour le compted^in belligdraut, par suite d'arrangemont pris k Tavaoce
arec lai, sous la forme d'un contyat commercial quelconque : vente, commission, loaage
<l'indnstrie on de travail; que les arrangements aient 6t6 pris ostensiblement, ou
HQ^ils le soient d'une mani(>re secr^te ou ddguisde ; car la loyaut^ est une condition es-
•lentielle dans la solution des difficnltds internationales, et sous le couvert des fausses
^pparences il fanttoujonrs aller au fond des choses. II y a ici, incontestablemeut, une
^coode hypotbese qu'il importe de distinguer soigneusement de la prdc6dente.
Nous nous rattacherons, pour r^oudre en droit des gens les difficult^ que prdsente
eette nonvelle situation, ^un principe universellement <Stabli, qui se formule en ce peu
<Jemota: " Inviolabilit<S du territoire nentre." Cette inviolability est un droit pour
jctat nentre, dont le territoire ne doit pasdtre atteint par les faits de guerre, mats elle
impose anssi h ce m^me 6tat nentre une <Stroite obligation, celle de ne pas permettre,
celle d'empdcher activement, an besoin, Temploi de ce territoire par Tune des parties
OQ aa profit de Tune des parties belligdrantes, dans nn but hostile k Tautre partie.
Les poblicistes en tsrddit ne font aucun doute pour ce qui concerne Tarmement et
1 eqaipemeut dans nn port neutre de b&timeuts de guerre destines h accroltre les forces
des belligdrants. lis s'accordent pour reconnaltre I'illdgalitd de ces armements ou
^^quipements, corame une infraction de la part de V6t&t neutre qui les tolererait aux
devoirs de la nentralit^^.
N'est-il pas Evident quMl en doit #tre de mdme, a /o?*fiori, de la construction de pareils
b^tiraents, lorsque cette construction alien dans les conditions prdvnes en notre seconde
hypothese f
So that, according to M. Ortolan, if a ship happens to be ready made
ami armed, she may be lawfully sold to a foreign belligerent, thongh
with a full knowledge on the part of the seller of the purpose to which
^he is to be applied ; but, if she is made to order, the transaction as-
sumes the opposite character, and is a breach of neutrality. With all
' United States Documents, vol. vii, p. 36.
* ** Corso di diritto internazionale,^' vol. ii, p. 30.
250 ARBITRATION AT GENEVA.
respect for the authority of this distiDgaished writer, I must decline to
adopt a doctrine which rests on so shadowy a distinction.
Professor IMuutschli, undertaking to pronounce a judgment on the
rM.n.r. .. profev subjectmattcr of this dispute, as it were ex catJwdra^ in au
.nrijiuuiMhiu article in the ''lievue de Droit International" of 1870, lays
down the following doctrine :
L*<5tat Deutro qui veut|;arantirsaneiitralit<^ doit H^ubstonir d*aider aiicune des parties
l»elligerantes dans ses opi^ratioiiH do guerre. II ne peat preter sou territoire jwur \)ei-
uiettre h I'une des parties d'organiHer en lieu sftr des entreprises militaires. II e»t
oblig6 de veiller tideleraent ii ce que des partiouliers u'armcut point sur son territoire
des vaisseaux de guerre, destin<^H h. Atre livrds tk uno des parties belligoratites. (Blunt-
schli, Modernes Volkerrecht^ section 76i?.)
Ce devoir est procl.am6 par la science, et il d<^rive taut de rid<5e de nentralite qne des
^gards auxqnels tout <Stat est udcessairement teuu euvers les autres ^tats avec le^nels
il vit en paix et amitid.
La neutrality est la non-participation h la guerre. Lorsquo lVt<at neutre soutient un
des belligdrants, il prend part ii la guerre en faveur de celui quMl soutient, et des lors
il c€S8€ (Vetre neutre, L'adversaire est autoris<^ h voir daus cette participation ud aet«
d'hostilitd. Et cela n'est pas seulemeut vrai quand Tetat neutre livre lui-meme des
troupes ou des vaisseaux de guerre, mais aussi lorsquMl prete h un des bellig^raiits nu
appui m^iat en perinittant, tandis qtCil pourrait Vempecherj qtke, de son territoire ncntre
ou cnvoie des troupes ou des na vires de guerre.
Partout oil le droit de neutraliUS 6tend le cercle de son application, il restreint les
limites de la guerre et de ses d<^sast reuses cous<^quences, et il garautit les bienfaits de
la paix. Les devoirs de V6tat neutre euvers les helligtrants soot en substance ten memtx
que ceux de l'6tut amit en temps de paix, vis-tVvis des autres <5tats. Aucnn ^tat ne pent
nou plus, en temps de paixj permettro que Ton organise sur son t«rritoire des agres-
sions contre un c^tat ami. Tons sont obliges de veiller k ceque leur sol ne devienne
pas le point de dcT^part d'entreprises niilitaires, dirig<^es contre des <^tats avec lesquels
ils sont en paix.
I entirely agree in all that is thus said by this able jurist — that is, if
I properly apprehend his language, and am right in understanding it to
apply not to the sale of ships of war, shnpliciter, but to the sending out
of troops and armed ships for the purpose of what the learned professor
terms '* military enterprises," and to the " organizing of aggressions
against a friendly state.*'
Another eminent jurist, who has espoused the cause of the United
,„..,,..„ ,.f M Ro. States, in a very able review of the work of Professor Mouii-
i.uj,uu....ui,K.. tague Bernard, and whose opinion is referred to by the
United States as an authority in their favor, M. Rolin Jacquemyns, does
not, so far as I collect, deny the legality of the sale of ships of war, but
rests his opinion ou the general circumstances connected with the con-
struction and escape of the Alabama. I3ut the spirit in which this author
writes will be seen from the following passage:
II cdt dans tons les cas 6t6 digue d'un Juriscousulto de la valeur de M. Bernanl de ne
pas se bonier ii examiner cettu grave question des devoirs de la neutrality au point de
vue du droit positif existant. CVst par I'opiuion bauteinent <^miso de savants coinme
lui que les id<^es g<Su6rales en inatiore de droit sont appcl^^es k se rectifier et i\ se com-
pleter. Or, s'il y a une chose que chaquo guerre uouvelled^uiontre, c'estle caracUTo,
non-seuleuient insuflfisant, mais fallacieux ae la vieille d<^Bnition: neutrarum partiuu.
Si au d6but de cette deruiere et dpouvantable guerre de 1870, TAngleterre, au lieu dVtro
obstin<Sment neu^arum parftfim, avait clairement d^sapprouvd roffensive iniquedcU
France, est-ce que les int<$rOts de la justice et de la paix u'auraient pas ^t^^ mieux servis f
L'iddal dn personnage neutrarum partium^ c'cst le jugeq ui, dans rapologue de rtiuUre
et des plaideurs, avale le cont-enu du mollusque et a^juge les 6caille8 aux deux belli-
gdrants. II n'est d'aucnn parti, mais il s'engraisse scrupuleusement aux d^pensde toa»
eux. Une telle couduite de la part d'un grand peuple pent C'tre aussi couforme aux
pr6cddent8 quo celle du v<^udrable magistral dout parle la fable. Mais quand elle ih*
fonde sur une loi positive, sur une rtgle admise, c'est une preuve que cette loi oh
cette T^gle est mauvaise, comme' coutraire a la science, r\ la diguit^^ et k la 8olidant<'
humaine.^
1 a
Revue de droit int€a*national et de l<^gislation compar<^e/^ 1871, p. 125.
OPINIONS OF SIR ALEXANDER COCKBURN. 251
This reasouing may be very well deserving of attention for the future;
but, for the present purpose, wben the autbority of M. Itolin Jacque-
inyns as to the culpability of Great Britain is cited, I must protest
against the question being determined not according to " existing posi-
tive law," but to the opinion of " savants " as to what the law should have
been, or should now be made. " The tribunal cannot, I apprehend,
adopt such a principle informing its judgment. Its functions are not to
make the law, but to decide according to the rules of the treaty, with the
li^rht which the acknowledged principles of international jurisprudence
and the established usages of nations may afford for its assistance.
The occasion may be a tempting one for giving effect to speculative
opinions or individual theories. But a decision founded on such a prin-
ple would not insure the approbation of wise and judicious minds, or
command the respect of those who might suffer from a judgment which
would be at variance with the first principles of equity and justice.
Let ns see what has been the practical view taken of the subject in
England or America. As far back as the year 1721, ships op.,.ic.„ of u,^
of war having been built in England, and sold to the Czar «''«i«"<'»k»«'»"1
of Kussia, then at war with Sweden, and complaint having been made
by the Swedish minister, the judges were summoned to the House of
Lords, and their opinion was asked, whether by law the King of Eng-
land liad the power to prohibit the building of ships of war, or of great
force for foreigners, in any of His Majesty's dominions. And the judges,
with the exception of one, who had formed no opinion, answered that
the King had no such power. It is plain that, if the sale of such vessels
had been an offense against international law, the King would have had
power to prevent it by the prosecution of the parties building and sell-
ing such ships, as offenders against the municipal law, as the offense
would have been a misdemeanor at the common law.
It appears that Chief Justice Trevor, and Parker, afterwards Lord
Chancellor, had given the like opinion seven years before.^
The judgment of Judge Story in the well-known case of the Santissi-
nia Trinidad,"^ shows that the sale of armed ships of war has c^.^ of ti» shhh,
never been held to be contrary to law in America. In that •""" ^''""'"^
case a vessel called the Independencia, equipped for war and armed with
twelve guns, had been sent out from the American port of Baltimore,
upon a pretended voyage to the northwest coast, but in reality to
Buenos Ayres, then at war with Spain, with instructions to the super-
cargo to sell her to the Buenos Aj-res government if he could obtain a
certain price. She was sold to that government accordingly, and, hav-
ing been commissioned, was sent to sea and made prizes. She after-
ward put into an American x)ort, and having there received an augmen-
tation of her force, again put to sea and captured a prize. The validity
of this prize was questioned in the suit on two grounds: 1st. That the
sale of the vessel to a foreign government by American citizens, for the
purpose of being used in war against a belligerent with whom the United
States were at peace, was a violation of neutrality and illegal ; 2d.
Because the capture had been made after an augmentation of the force
of the vessel in a port of the United States. The capture was held invalid
on the latter ground. Upon the first, the judge delivered judgment as
iollows :
The question as to the original illegal armament and ontfit of the Independencia
may be dismissed in a few words. It is apparent, that though equipi)cd
4«a vefisel of war, she was sent to Baenos Ayres on a commercial adven- jui,j;I^ti* "'^ *''■
tore, contraband, indeed, bnt in no shape violating our laws or our "* "^* • " • »^
•'•Fortescue's Kepurts," p. 388.
-Whcaton, p. 2*-:i.
252 ARBITRATION AT GENEVA.
national neutrality. If capturod by a Spanish Bhfp of war during the voyafj^e, nhe
would have been justly condemned as good prize for being engaged in a traffic prohib-
ited by the law of nations. But there is nothing in our laws, or in the law of natioDSt
that forbids our citizens from sending armed vessels, as well as munitions of war, to
foreign ports for sale. It is a commercial adventure which no nation is bound to pro-
hibit, and which only exposes the person engaged in it to the penalty of confiscation.
Supposing, therefore, the voyage to have been for commercial purposes, and the sale
at Buenos Ayre^ to have been a bona-fide sale, (and there is nothing in the evidence
before us to contradict it,) there is no preteuRe to say that the original outfit on the
voyage was illegal, or that a capture made after the sale was, for that cause alone,
invalid.
It is now sought to shake the authority of tins judgment by saying that
it was unnecessary to the decision of the cause, as the prize was held to he
invalid on the other ground; but it was, nevertheless, a solemn judg-
ment upon a point properly arising in the cause, and, so far as 1 am aware,
it has never been questioned.
It is indeed alleged (but for the first time) in the American case that
c.-r or t*... cirnu thc autliority of this decision is to be looked upon as over-
**"'" ruled or controlled by a judgment given by the same court
in the case of the Gran Para. Now, the latter judgment was a judg-
ment of the same court, (of which, therefore, Mr. Justice Story was him-
self a member,) and was pronounced on the very next day. We are told
in the case of the United States, that the cases were argued, the one on
the 20th, the other on the 28th of February, 1822; that the judgment in
the case of the Santissima Trinidad was pronounced on the 13th of
March, that in the case of the Gran Para on the ensuing day, the 13th.
It is said, and truly, that " there can be no doubt they were considered
together in the consultation-room,'' and lawyers are gravely asked to
believe that it w^as intended by the second judgment to overrule or
qualify the doctrine involved in the first. No English or American
lawyer could entertain the notion for a moment that, if the same court
had intended to overrule, or even to qualify, the judgment given imme-
diately before, it would not have referred to it in terms and given its
reasons for so sudden a change in its views of the law. But the truth
is — and I am at a loss to understand how the American Counsel can have
failed to overlook this, or to call attention to it when citing the decision,
that so far from overruling or affecting the judgment in the Santissima
Trinidad, the case of the Gran Para had nothing in common with it
beyond that of being a suit for the restitution of prize. It was not the
case of the sale of a ship to a foreign government at all. It was simply
the case of an Ameiican privateer armed in defiance of American law,
and cruising under a fictitious commission, the property in her still re-
maining unchanged in the American citizen by whom she had been
fitted out. The great importance of this distinction will be seen in
another part of this cjise.
In a learned and able article in the well-known publication, the
mo ica , ,.« "American Law Keview'' of January, 1871, the writer, after
referring to the case of the Santissima Trinidad as "a
famous and leading case," states the law as follows :
It may he declared as indnbitahle that the pnre unalloyed bargain and sale of a ship*
even a ship of war, to a belligerent is legal by the rulos of international law ; that sach
a ship is, however, contraband of war, and it captured after sale on her way toward
delivery, or befv)re sale on her way toward a market where she is intended to be sold to
a belligerent, she will be properly condemned. Neutrality acts have not been intended
to change this state of the law, but only to famish sufficient means for preventing its
abuse. Our original proposition that the doctrine of coutraband of war does not
operate as a restriction upon trade, upon dealings which are purely commercial, remaias
correct, even in this matter of war vessels.
In this view of the law I am glad to have the concurrence of our dis-
OPINIONS OF SIK ALEXANDER COCKBURN. 253
tinguished colleague, Mr. Adams, who, writing to Earl o,,.,...,., oi Mr.
Russell on the Gth of April, 1863, states, with reference to ^'^""'^
certain American authorities which Lord Kussell had appealed to :
The sale and transfer by a neutral of arms, of munitions of war, and even of reaseh of
waff to a belliger*4nt country, not subject to blockade at the time, as a purely commer-
cial transaction, is decided by these authorities not to be unlawful. They ^o not a step
farther; and precisely to that extent I have myself taken no exception to the doctrine.^
This being the present state of international law on this subject, if it
is desirable to introduce new rules, it must be done by the Question .* lo
common consent of nations, not by the speculative doctrines LTM;l'i''''S>nt™lana
of theorists, however distinguished. *''^""
But is it desirable that it should be altered, and that obstacles to the
industry and trade of neutral nations should be created ?
Azuni observes :
Une grande partie du commerce de quel([ues nations europ(^ennes, telles que les
Su^dots, les Norv^^giens, et les Russes, consiste en marchandises u^cessaires pour la guerre
maritime, pour la construction et pour r<^quipement d'une flotte ; elles vendent en temps
de paix, ^ quiconque en a besoiu, du fer, du cuivre, des mA*ts, de« bois, du goudron, de
U poix, et des canons, enfin dea navires de guerre entiers. Quel les raisons pourrait-il 3^^
avoir de priver ces nations de leur commerce et de leur maniere de subsister, a\ Tocca-
Hxou d'une guerre k laquelle ils ne prenuont aucune part ? 11 n'y a dans le code dela
justice et de Tdquit^ rien en faveur d'une telle protection. 11 est done ni^cessaire
d'<^tablir, comme maxime fondamentaledetout droit, que, les peuples neutres devantet
poavant licitement continuer le commerce qu'ils font en temps de paix, on tie doit faire
aucune dhtinetion de denr<^es, de marchandises, et de maniifactureSf qnoique propres d la
guerre, et que, par cette raison, la vente et le transport aux parties bellig<^i'autesen sont
permis, si le commerce actif et passif 6tMt ^tabli en temps de paix, saus qu'on puisse
prcteudre, en aucune nianiere, que la neutrality soitviok^e, pourvuque cela sefasse sans
aoimosite, sans pr^fdreuce et saus partiality.
I cannot but feel the force and justice of these observations. I ask in
like manner, " Why — unless, indeed, on account of reasons of state
affecting the interests of the neutral state itself, in which case private
interests must give way to those of the public — are the armorers of
Birmingham or Liege, or the shipbuilders of London or Liverpool, to
have their business put a stop to because one of their customers hap-
l>en8 to be engaged in war with another state f It is not enough to say
that but for the war the demand for the articles in question would not
have arisen. From whatever cause it may proceed, increased demand
is the legitimate advantage of the producer or the merchant, and it is by
the advantage which periods of increased and more active demand bring
with them that the loss arising from occasional periods of stagnation is
balanced and made good.
Tbe authors who desire to put further restraints on the free com-
merce of neutrals than international law has hitherto done, appear to
lue to think too much of the interests of belligerents, who are the dis-
turbers of the world's peace, and to be too unmindful of the interests of
iieatrul nations, who are simply seeking occupation for their industry
and commerce, indifferent by whom they are emx)loyed. They seem to
think that the belligerent is granting an indulgence or conferring a
favor on the neutral in allowing him to remain a stranger to the war,
which the gratelul neutral should be too glad to purchiise by the sacri-
fice of all rights at all incompatible with the convenience of the bellig-
erent.
M. Hautefeuille, indeed, invokes humanity, and would prohibit the
sale of articles of warlike use in order to prevent and put an end to war.
But if considerations of humanity are to be taken into account, it is
obvious that the sale of such things should be prohibited in time of
* IJuitetl 8tat4is Documents, vol. ii, j , ."VIM.
254 ARBITRATION' AT GENEVA.
l)eace, as well as of war. They are not the less available in time of war
because bought in time of peace.
The armorer or the shipbuilder who is thus required to close his
establishment to the belligerents when war arises, may continae to
manufacture and sell, undisturbed, his instruments of destruction down
to the very hour when war is proclaimed. Had Prussia, for instance,
anticipated the attack of France as likely to occur so soon, and had
desired to procure a fleet, she might have resorted to the shipwrights'
yards of England till she possessed ships enough to cope with her for-
midable adversary on theseas. Butlet warbut be proclaimed, and accord-
ing to these views the work becomes at once criminal, the workman's
hammer must be arrested, the shipwright's yard closed. There may be
reasons of sUite in certain instances — as according to British and
American views in the case of ships — for putting a restraint on the
freedom of trade, but it seems idle to base it on the score of humanity.
The effect would simply be that a government meditating the invasion
of another country would have to provide itself in time. The neighbor
upon whom it thus brings war on the sudden, and who may be compar-
atively unprepared, is not to be at liberty to seek the materials of war
elsewhere, but is to be left at the mercy of the invader. Peaceful na-
tions would thus be at the mercy of others more ambitious and warlike
and better prepared than themselves. The weak would be sacrificed
to the strong. Let me suppose a people rising in a just and righteoas
cause. I will not offend the patriotic susceptibility of my honorable
and esteemed colleague by suggesting, for a single instant, even hypo-
thetically, the possibility that the cause of the insurgents might have
been such a one — I will take what he will readily admit to have been
so, the separation of the United States from the mother country. Let
me suppose that, while Great Britain had her fleets prepared, her
troops armed, her arsenals well stored, America bad neither ships nor
arms, nor munitions of war, with which to resist the superior forces of
her adversary. Would it have been in the interest of humanity that
she should be shut out from the markets of the world f An appeal to
considerations of humanity has no doubt something very captivat-
ing about it; but I question very much whether humanity would not
lose more than it would gain by the proposed restraint on the commer-
cial freedom of nations.
The case, however, becomes essentially different when a ship thus
sin,, oi ^r -.'t equipped and armed is not sent out to be taken to the port
";;,,,';'; """" ""* of the belligerent purchaser, but is sent to sea with officers
and a fighting crew for the purpose of immediate warfare. Under such
circumstances the transaction ceases to be one of mere comnierce, and
assumes the foi;m of a hostile expedition sent forth from the territory of
the neutral. Such an expedition is plainly a violation of ueutmlity,
according to international law, and one which the neutral government
is bound to do its best to prevent.
But what if, in order the better to avoid observation and detection,
Arm.mcnt i. .1 H thc vcsscl Is scut forth, without its armament, without its
ivrr*,r.lup"!" '" ' war crew, and these, sent to it by another or different ves-
sels, are put on board of it in some place or water beyond the jurisdic-
tion of the neutral ? In my opinion, except so far as the question of
diligence is concerned, as to which it may form a very material element,
this makes no difference. The ship, the armament, the crew, though
sent out separately, form each of them part of one and the same enter-
prise or undertaking. Taken together, they constitule a hostile expe-
dition and must be treated as such. It is as though a hostile force were
OPINIONS OF SIR ALEXANDER COCKBURN. 2o5
sent by sea to invade an enemy's territory, and each arm of the force so
sent, infantry, cavalry, artillery, were embarked in different ships. The
whole would still forunt one expedition. So here, ships, guns, crew, are
each a part of one entire whole to be employed and used in furtherance
of one common design. This is happily expressed in the American Law
Review, in the article already cited : " It was not,*' writes the author,
** because the Messrs. Laird sold a war ship to the confederates that we
have a claim against England for a breach of international law; but it
was becanse collateral arrangements for completing the equipment'and
armament of the ship so sold, by placing on board officers and crew,
guns and provisions, rendered the entire procedure, in fact, the incep-
tion of a hostile undertaking from the confines of a neutral country.''
Of course the question may become one of degree. The interval of
time which might elapse between the sending out of the ship and that
of the crew, the distance between the neutral territory and the place at
which the war-crew are to join, the possible fact that it was originally
intended to procure a crew in some other country than that of the
neutral, the occurrence of intermediate circumstances, might fairly lead
to the inference that there was no present intention to apply the vessel
to the purpose of war, which in my mind is an essential element in
ascribing a belligerent character to that which might otherwise have
remained a purely commercial transaction.
An expedition of this kind being an undoubted violation of neutrality,
every one will agree that it is the duty of the neutral gov- p,,,^ „f „^„,„i
emment, if it knows that such expedition is about to leave «o*"""«^"»
its waters, to use due diligence to prevent it. Nor does the duty of the
neutral government end here. It is also its duty to use due diligence
to make itself informed as to the true character and destination of a
vessel, where there is reasonable ground to 8usx)ect that such character
and destination are unlawful.
The duty of the neutral government in this respect appears to me to
involve three things : first, that the law of the neutral shall be sufficient
to enable the executive to prevent breaches of its duties as a neutral ;
secondly, that, where its application is called for, the law shall be put
in force honestly and in good faith ; thirdly, that all proper and legiti-
mate means shall be used to detect an intended violation of the law, so
as by the application of the law to prevent it.
Having thus seen what is the present state of international law,
according to the views of leading jurists and the practice
of nations, more especially that of England and America, "TciVu-e..!
the parties to the present dispute, we are enabled to form
an opinion as to how far the assertion in the case of the United States
that the English foreign-enlistment act, which, going far beyond the
restraints which international law imposes on the neutral subject, pro-
hibits even the fitting-out and equipping of vessels for the purpose of
war, is only a recognition of duties imposed by international law. The
proposition is altogether untenable.
It is, in the first place, altogether at variance with what we know
historically to have been the origin both of the American acts of 1794
and 1818, and of the British act of 1819. to say that either of these
acts arose out of, or was passed to prevent, the building or equipping
or arming of ships of war to be sold to a belligerent.
The American act of 1794 was passed in couvsequence of the proceed-
ings of the French envoy and consuls in the United States, Bn^h R«d An,..r,.
on the breaking out of the war between Great Britain and •••'"•^^*'
France, in procuring privateers to be fitted out and manned by Ameri-
AnMTirNn nrau
fli"Cl ol"
WtllMIlt
•rt.
256 AKBITRATION AT GENEVA.
can citizens, and furnishing them with letters of marque as privateers.
It was not a question of fitting out sliips to be sold to the French gov-
ernment, but of fitting out American vessels, the property of American
owners, and manned by American crews, to prey, under commissions as
privateers, upon the commerce of a friendly nation.
In like manner, the American act of 1818 arose out of the precisely
similar conduct of American citizens in fitting out American vessels,
manned by American crews, against the commerce of Spain and Por-
tugal, under commissions as privateers from the de facto governments
of the revolted colonies of the two countries.
The Spanish minister had loudly complained that some thirty vessels,
specifically named, the property of American citizens, and belonging to
ports of the Union, were thus preying on Spanish commerce.
The representative of Portugal made similar complaints.
This practice carried on, on so large a scale, created great scandal ; and
after the complaints had gone on for two years, the act of 1818 wa»
passed to put a check on it, if possible. This act, in addition to the
enactments of that of 1794, required that a bond in double the value of
the ship should be given in the case of any armed vessel, owued in
whole or in part by American citizens, going out of an American port,
' that the vessel should not be employed against a foreign goveniment;
and gave power to the collectors of customs to detain any vessel, bnilt
for war, leaving an American port, under certain suspicious circam-
stances specified in the act. It is plain that this statute, like its prede-
cessor, was directed against privat<^ering carried on by American citi-
zens against countries with which the United States were at peace.
Building or fitting out ships of war for a belligerent had not come into
question at that time at all.
In like manner the British act of 1811) had in view, not the preveu
tion of building or equipping ships fur a belligerent, in the w^ay of trade,
but the prevention of military or naval expeditions on behalf of the re-
volted colonies, or malcontent subjects of Spain. Its origin is briefly
stated in the report of Lord Tenterden to the neutrality laws commis
sion:
The British forciun-erlistmont act may \ye said to have ariseu froui the provisiou
of a treaty ; that with Spain of the iiHth of Au|rii8t, 1814.
This tn-aty, or, as it is cnlled, " additioual articles to the treaty of July 5, I'^U.'*
contains the follow iucf article :
"Articlk III. His Britannic Majesty, "being anxions that the ti-onbles and disturb-
ances Avhich unfortunately prevail in the dominions of His Catholic Majesty in America
should entirely cease, and the subjects of those provinces should returu to their obedi-
ence to their lawful sovereign, enj^ages to take the most eflectual measures for pre-
vent injr his subjects from furuishiug arms, anmiunition, or any other article to the re-
volted in America."
In inlti the reactionary policy of King Ferdinand, the prohibitory dnti en imposed by
him on British commerce, and the ingratitude with which he treated British otiicern
and others who had served his canse in Spain, had provoked a great deal of irritatiou
in England ; and there was a considerable party in the House of Commons, headed by
Sir James Macintosh, who were prepared to support the claims of the Spanish Ameri-
can colonies to independence.
Expeditions were said to bo in preparation for rendering active assistance Inith t«
the malcontents in Spain and to the rebels in America, in spite of s( proclamation for-
bidding such expeditions, which had been published in 1817; and the Government
consequently found that it was necessary, in order to keep good faith with Spain and
to prevent infractions of British neutrality, to bring in an act of Parliament to provide
for the case which r.ow for the lirst time arose in modern history, of Great Britain be-
ing neutral at the time of a great maritime war.'
That it was against armaments going out from the shores of Great
Britain that the measure was directed is plain from some of the argu-
' See report of commishion, p. 37; British Ap)>eudix, vol. iii.
OPINIONS OF SIR ALEXANDER COCKBURN. 257
ments used by Mr. Canning in the Course of the debate on the bill.
Thus he says :
If a foreigner shonid chance to come into any of onr ports, and see all this mighty
armament eqiiippin<r for foreign service, he would naturally ask, ** With what nation
;jre you at war!" The answer would be, ** With none."
" For what purpose, then," he would say, ** are these troops levied, and by whom t "
The reply of course must be, "They are not levied by government; nor is* it known
tor what service they are intended; but, be the service what it may, government can-
not interfere." Would not all that give such a foreigner a high idea of the excellence
of the Euglish constitution? Would it not suggest to him that for all the ordinary
purposes of a state there was no government in England T Did the honorable and
learned gentlemen not think that the allowing of armaments to be litted out in this
country against a foreign power was a just cause of war f *
Mr. Robert Grant, another member of the government, said that —
Every government, in its foreign relations, was the representative of the nation to
which it belonged, and it was of the highest importance to the peace of nations that
;;nveroments should be so considered. Nations announced their intentions to each
other through the medium of their rulers. Hence every state knew where to look
tur expressions of the will of foreign nations; where to learn whether war or peace
was intended ; where to demand redress for injuries, and where to visit injuries unre-
<ire88ed. But aU this system was inverted and thrown into confusion, if the govern-
Mient might act in one way and the nation in another. All this system was at an end
•'N while we were professedly at peace with Spain, she was to be attacked by a large
array of military adventurers from our own shores — a sort of extra-national body —
utterly irresponsible — utterly invulnerable, except in their own persons — for whose
acts no redress could be demanded of the British government — who might burn, pil-
lasre, and destroy, then lind a safe asylum in their own country, and leave us to say,
" We have performed our engagements — we have honorably maintained our neutral
character." "^
Bnt the language of these acts being large enough to embrace a case
of the equipping a vessel for a foreign belligerent, the foreign-enlist-
inent act has been made available for the purpose of preventing a traf-
fic which is calculated to cause embarrassment to a government pressed
hy the remonstrances of belligerents. And this act having been so often
api>ealed to and discussed, a notion has sprung up that the equipment
of vessels of war, though in the way of trade, is a violation of neutrality,
while, jn fact, it is only a violation of the municipal law.
Mr. Dana, in the passage before cited, puts the matter on the right
(rround.
Again, it is idle to contend that alterations in the law, since made by
statute, to give a greater ])ower to the executive in dealing A,toe.Te<t of art
with suspected vessels, are to be taken as the measure of "^''*^
the obligations incumbent on the British government by international
'aw. Catching at a few words in the report of the royal commissioners,
who, in recommending certain statutory additions to the law, add : "In
making the foregoing recommendations we have not felt ourselves bound
to consider whether we were exceeding what could actually be required
J».y international law, but we are of opinion that if those recommenda-
tions should be adopted, the municipal law of this realm available for
the enforcement of neutrality will derive increased efficiency, and will,
'^0 far as we can see, have been brought into full conformity with Your
Majesty's international obligations,'' the United States desire that it
^hall be taken, notwithstanding that the commissioners expressly say
that their recommendations are independent of any considerations of
international law ; that these statesmen and learned jurists meant that
without these additions the law of England failed to come up to the
C'xigencies of international law. Such an argument is really undeserv-
ing of serious notice.
' Hansard's Parliamentary Debates, volume 40, page 1106. See also extracts given
ill the Argument of the United States, page 510.
'^ Hansard, volume 40, page 1244. Argument of United States, page 512.
17 B
258 ARBITRATION AT GENEVA.
•
Equally unfouDded is the assertion that the provisions of the foreign-
enlistment act are only a statutory declaration of the common law of
England. The enactment of that statute could only be declaratory of
the common law, if co-extensive with the obligations of intematioDal
law; whereas, in fact, it went far beyond them. The opinion of tbe
judges, pronounced as far back as the beginning of the hist cent,ary,
that even the sale of armed ships was not contrary to the law of Eng
land, shows the rashness and the incorrectness of this assertion.
But it is claimed on behalf of the United States that, whether the
foreign -enlistment act was or was not more than co-exteu-
wn!^^V^nuIi"m.^." sive with international obligations, the United States were
"*' *** entitled, irrespectively of the rule of the treaty of Washing-
ton, to have it put in force in all its rigor for their protection. This
involves the important question whether, wheie the municipal law oi
the neutral is more stringent than the international law, a belligerent
can claim, as of right, the ptitting in force of the municipal law in his
behalf, and make the omission to do so a ground of grievance, as found
ing a right of redress at the hands of a neutral government. A few
short considerations will serve to dispose of this question, which, indeed,
seems to answer itself.
When a Government makes its municipal law more stringent than tl.e
obligations of international law would require, it does so, not for the
benefit of foreign states, but for its own protection, lest the acts of Ha
subjects in overstepping the confines, oftentimes doubtful, of strict
right, in transactions of which a few circumstances, more or less, may
alter the character, should compromise its relations with other nations.
It was in this spirit and with this object that the foreign-enlistment act
was passed, as is shown by its preamble, which is in the followinjj
terms:
Whereas the enlistment or engaf^ement of His MajoHty's Hubject« to serve in war m
foreign service, without His Mnjeaty's licenfic, and the iitting out and equipping ami
arming of vessels by Jlis Majesty's subjects, without His Majesty's license, for warlike
operations in or against the dominions or territories of any foreign prince, state, poten
tate, or persons exercising or assuming to exercise the powers of government in or over
any foreign country, colony, province, or part of any province, or against the ship,
goods, or merchandise of any foreign prince, state, potentate, or persons as aforesaid,
or their subjects, may be prriudicial to and tend to endanger the peace and welfare of ihw
kingdom; and whereas the laws in force are not su the i en tly effectual for preventing
the same :
cr
Now, it is quite clear that the obligations of the neutral state sprin
out of, and are determined by, the principles and rules of international
law, independently of the municipal law of the neutral. They would
exifct exactly the same, though the neutral state had no municipal law
to enable it to enforce the duties of neutrality on its subjects. It wouUl
obviously afford no answer on the part of a neutral government to a
complaint of a belligerent of an infraction of neutrality, that its munici-
pal law was insufficient to enable it to insure the observance of neutral-
ity by its subjects, the reason being that international law, not the mu-
nicipal law of the particular country, gives the oidy measure of inter-
national rights and obligations. While, therefore, on the one hand,
the municipal law, if not co-extensive with the international law, will
.afford no excuse to the neutral, so neither, on the other, if in excess ot
what international obligations exact, will it afford any right to the bel-
ligerent which international law would fail to give to him.
In one respect, and in one respect only, does the municipal law, when
in excess of international law, give a right to the belligerent*. Equality
being of the essence of neutrality, he has a right to insist that the neu-
OPINIONS OF SIR ALEXANDER COCKBURN. 259
tral subject shall equally be comx>elled to keep within the muuieipal law
in dealing with the adversary as when dealing with himself. A belliger-
ent is also bej'ond question perfectly at liberty to urge upon the neu-
tral government, in the way of solicitation or even of remonstrance, to
enforce the municipal law ; but so long as it is not enforced against
himself he has no right to redress, because it is not put in force against
his enemy.
I am at a loss exactly to understand for what purpose these points
have been brought forward, and so strenuously insisted on, in the
American arguments. For, the rule prescribed to us by the treaty, and
to the benefit of which the United States are, therefore, entitled at our
hands, is in the very terms of the foreign-enlistment act. I presume the
purpose was to create a foundation for the imputation against Great
Britain of not having acted in good faith. In that respect I may have
to advert to these arguments again. For my present purpose it is
enough to have cleared the ground of them.
In like manner when it is sought, in the case of the United States, to
make the Queen's proclamation of neutrality the measure K,r.^i „f ^^0.,.,,.^
of the international obligations of her subjects, every law- ''^"■
yer oaght to know that this is to give to a royal proclamation an author-
ity which it does not possess. The purpose of such a proclamation,
used only in great conjunctures, is to remind the subject of the provis-
ions of the law, and to warn him against breaking it ; and if, after such
warning, a man olfends against the law, his otfense is aggravated by the
fact that he has set the injunctions of the sovereign at defiance; but
such a proclamation cannot make or add to the law, or alter it in the
smallest particular. The proclamation of 18G1 was in the accustomed
lorni. It drew attention to the enactments of the foreign-enlistment
act, and warned all persons subject to British law that, if they did any
JU'ts in contravention of that act, or in violation of the law of nations,
as by enlisting in the military service, or serving in any ship of war or
transport, of the contending parties ; or going or engaging to go beyon<l
the seas for the purpose of enlisting, or procuring, or attempting to
procure, within Her Majesty's dominions, others to do so ; or fitting-out,
arming, or equipping any vessel to be employed as a ship of war, or
privateer, or transport, by either of the contending parties; or by
breaking or endeavoring to break any blockade lawfully and actually
established by or on behalf of either of the said contending parties ; or
by carrying officers, soldiers, dispatches, arms, military stores, or mate-
rials, or any article or articles considered and deemed to be contraband
of war, according to the law or modern usage of nations, for the use or
service of either of the contending parties — all persons so ofifending
would incur and be liable to the several penalties and penal consequences
by the said statute or by the law of nations in that behalf imposed
or denounced. The Queen's subjects are further warned that all persons
entitled to her protection, if they should misconduct themselves in the
premises, would do so at their peril and of their own wrong, and that
they would in nowise obtain any protection from Her Majesty against
any liabilities or penal consequences.
The effect is that persons are warned that infractions of the foreign-
enlistment act will be visited with the penalties of that statute, while
acts within the penalties of international law will be liable to those
penalties, (namely, ' seizure and confiscation of property,) and that
against the latter penalties no protection from the Crown must be
expected.
But the proclamation contains no prohibition of these latter acts,
2()0 ARBITRATION AT GENEVA.
namely, dealing in contraband of war, or breaking blockade ; nor, if it
did, would such prohibition make such acts an offense: such a procla-
mation has never been understood by British statesmen or lawyers as
making either of these things an offense against the municipal law, or
as what the government was called upon to prevent, or would be justi-
fied in attempting to prevent.
Nor have similar proclamations of Presidents of the United States
been dealt with as imposing additional obligations on American citi-
zens, or as subjecting them to additional penalties, or as carrying the
obligations of the state further than those imposed by international law.
The American authorities which I have cited establish this beyond all
possibility of controversy.
To return to the subject of the equipment of vessels. Though I have
K.,..,Mmatof V,. thought it desirable, with a view to other part« of this case,
, , nnicr rwk. o ^^ ^qj-Jj qu^ ^hc Qucstiou of ucutral commerce to its full ex-
tent, and though I have come to the conclusion that by the general law
of nations the sale of a ship of war, though intended for the use of a
belligerent, is not, when merely a commercial transaction, a breach of
neutrality, yet, as Great Britain has consented that the mere equipping
of such a ship, thougli done in the way of trade, shall be taken to have
been a breach of neutrality which the British government was bound
to use due diligence to prev^ent, I agree with the rest of the tribunal that
we must for the present purpose, in respect of the fitting out and equip-
ping of vessels, take the rules of the treaty as the test of the allegeil
omissions and consequent liability of the Queen's government.
Though of opinion that Her Majesty's government were quite right in
ronnricfon of saylug that the rules laid down by the treaty are not such
ruu, »» ir.Hfy j^g intematioual law would have prescribed at the time these
claims arose, I agree that we are bound by the rules, and that it is our
duty to give full effect to them in dealing with these claims. However
great and unexampled the concession made by Great Britain in consent-
ing to be bound, in respect of past international obligations, by rules
which had no existence in international law when the breaches of neu-
tral obligations complained of are alleged to have occurred, I still think
thjit we must proceed in this inquiry as though the rules of the treaty
hail been, either by international law or by convention between the
two countries, binding on Great Britain at the time of the civil war. 1
cannot but concur with Mr. Evarts that we must give the same effect
to those rules as regards the past as we should give to them if dealing:
with a case which had arisen since they were agreed to by the two na-
tions, nor do I indeed understand this proposition to be disputed by
the counsel on the part of (rreat Britain. The question is whether due
diligence was used by the British gov^ernment to satisfy the exigeucy
of the obligations prescribed by those rules.
I proceed, then, to consider what is this "due diligence" which the
British government admits that it was bound to apply to
prevent the fitting out and equipping of the vessels in ques-
tion.
I apprehend that such diligence would be neither greater nor less than
any other neutral government would be bound to apply to the prevent
ing of any breach by its subjects of any head of neutral duty prescribed
by international law.
The difficulty of the position is, that the question haiS not hitherto come
within the range of juridicial discussion on subjects connected with inter-
national law. Hitherto, where a government has acted in good faith,
availing itself fairly of such means as were at its disposal, it has not
OPINIONS OF SIR ALEXANDER COCKHURN. 261
been usual to consuler it responsible to a belligerent government for
acts of its subjects that might have eluded its vigilance, or that the
degree of diligence exercised by it should be submitted to judicial appre-
ciation. And no country has insisted more strongly on this as the limit
of national responsibility than that of the United States. We must
endeavor to find a solution for ourselves.
As I have already observed, I cannot agree that the question of what
is *^due diligence" should be left to the unassisted mind of each individual
arbitrator ; nor can I agree that the solution is to be found in the fa€ts of
each individual case ; and though judges may be often disposed to apply
the maxim, to which our honorable president has more than once referred,
ex facto jus oritur^ it is, I think, one which must not be pushed too far.
1 agree with M. Troplong, who, writing on this subject with reference
to civil law, after referring to the different opinions of jurists on the
subject of diligence, says :
n est vrai quo jiisqu'i\pr(^sent Ics tribunanx so sont montr^sassfz indifforents surcos
dinpates de la chaire ; mais peiit-r^re pourruit-on lenr faire le roproche dc n'avoir atnorti
lavivaciCd de la questiou qii'en 6toiiifant toat ce qui est discussion desyst^meet point
de droit, sons la coninio<le interpr<5tation des faits, et sous un dquitable niais facile arbi-
traire. Neanuioins, dans cette matit^re, conime dans toutes les autres, il y a des regies qu'il
fant BO garder de d<5daigner : elles aident le magistrate elles font luire de prdcienses lumii'-
res ponr ceux qui ont mission de discnter sur les faits e t dc les j uger. Ce^ regies m'ont parn
Kirople«et jndicieuses; je vais les exposer comme je les entends; dans tous les cas, et
dofe^-je mo tromper, je prie le lecteur de ne pas m'adresser, conime iin de non-reccvoir,
> reproche de me livrer ;\ d'«)iseusps digressions. De tons les systemes, le moins ex-
I'Hsable, k mon avis, c'est celui (jui, sous protexte de fuir Tesprit de systeuie, se fait une
loi de n*en avoir aucun.'
It seems to me, therefore, right, before proceeding to deal with the
facts, to seek in the <loiuaiu of general jurisprudence for principles to
^ide us in judging how fiir the obligations of (»reat Britain have or
Lave not been satisfied.
No branch of law has been the subject of more discussion amongjuridi-
oal writers than that of diUgentia and its correlative culpa^
the latter being neither more nor less than the absence of '''*''''"^''" '"'*"
the former. I was prepared to expect, from the able men who have
I>repared the plemlings of the United States, some assistance to guide
us to right conclusions as to the standard of diligen(*.e required of a
neutral government for insuring the obedience of its subjects in matters
of neutrality. But after a vague statement that " the extent of the
diligence required to escape responsibility is, bj- all authorities, gauged
by the character and magnitude of the matter which it may effect^ by
the relative condition of the parties, by the ability of the party incur-
ring the liability to exercise the diligence required by the exigencies of
the case, tfnd by the extent of the injury which may follow negligence," ^
the only authority cited in any detail is that of an obsolete author, whose
exposition of the Roman law has been exploded by modern science.
After this, the case breaks out into the following vague and declama-
tory statement, not of what the law is, but of what the United States
Government desire it shall be understood to be :
The United States understand that the diligence which is called for by the rules of
the treaty of Washington is a due diligence; that is, a diligence proportioned to the
magnitude of the subject and to the dignity and strength of the power which is to
exercise it; a diligence which shall, by the use of active vigilance, and of all the other
means in the power of the neutral, through all stages of the transaction, prevent its
soil from being violated; a diligence that shall in like manner deter designing men
from committing acts of war on the soil of the neutral against its will, and thus possi-
' "Code civil expliqn^," vol. i, p. 479.
• United States Case, p. 152.
262 ARBITRATION AT GENEVA.
bly dragging it into a war which it would avoid ; a diligence which prompts the
neutral to the most euergetic measures to discover any purpose of doing the acts for-
bidden by its good faith as a neutral, and impoa(&s upon it the obliffation, when it
receives the knowledge of an intention to commit such acts, to use all tlie means in its
power to prevent it.
No diligence short of this would be " due ;" that is, commensurate with the emergency or
with the magnitude of the results of negligence. Understanding the words in this sense, tbe
United States find them identical with the measure of duty which Great Britain had
previously admitted.^
This is, of course, to beg the whole question in dispute. But it is
obvious that a matter of so much importance, as lying at the very root
of this inquiry, requires a more logical and precise consideration than the
foregoing rhetorical statement presents.
The juristsof the seventeenth century, among whom Vinnius occupiesa
prominent place,' divided the diligentia and correspouding
c>p,mo« of juniu. ^^j^^ ^^ ^^^ Romau law into three degrees. Thus we have
culpa latUy levisj levissimOj tiiking the intermediate degree, or culpa levis^
as being the absence of the diligence which a man of ordinary pra-
deuce and care would apply in the management of his own afifairs in
the given circumstances of the case. Though attacked by Donellns,
this tripartite division of diligence and default held its ground among
iuridical writers for a considerable time ; but on the formation of the
French code, the practical good sense of those by whom that great work
was carried out, so visible in their discussions, induced them to discard
it, and to establish one common standard of diligence or care as appli-
cable to all cases of civil obligation, namely, that of the *'bon p^re de
famille," the "diligens paterfamilias'' of the Koman digest. The code
Napoleon has been followed in the codes of other countries. Among
others, the Austrian code has lately adopted the same principle.'
The juridical view, too, of the earlier writers was not destined to stand
its ground. After it had been assailed by Thibaud and Von Lohr, Hass^,
in a most learned and able treatise, '' Die C/ulpa des romischen Reclits,*^
thoroughly exposed its unsoundness, and his views have since been fol-
lowed by a series of German jurists, including Professor Mommsen in
his well-known work "Beitrtige zum Obligationsrecht.''*
French authors have for the most part taken the same view. Com-
mentators on the code, Duranton, Ducarroy, Troplong, and lastly M.
Demolombe, in his great work, the " Cours du code civil," have agreed
that there can only be one standard for the diligence required in the
afifairs of life, where the interests of others are concerned, namely, that
of men of ordinary capacity, prudence, and care.
" Qu'est ce que la diligence d'un bon pore de • famille ?" asks M.
Troplong :^
C'est la diligence do ceUii qui, comme le dit Hcineccius, tient le milieu entre Tavare
aux cent yeux et I'homme uj^^liijent et di88ip<S. C'est dans le syst^eme dunt M. Ducar-
roy est I'organe, et que j'adoptu pleinemont, la diligence qu*un individu, aussi diligent
que les bommes le sont ordiuairement. apportu h la conservation de co qui lui appsr-
tient. Ou voit qu'en ce point les deux systt^mcs se rencontrent, et conduiseut It ane
m^me ddtinition — c'est-^ dire, ii ce juste milieu qui est dans la nature de I'hamanit^.
" The only . thing to be considered," says Professor Mommsen, ** i«
whether the default is such as does not occur to a diligent father of
family in general." " The care to be taken is ' qualem diligens pater-
familias suis rebus adhibere soleV "
' United States Case, p. 158.
* See Comment., lib. iii, tit. xv. Do Commodato.
' See "Ailgem. Biirgerl. (iesetzbuch, " sec. 1297.
* Vol. iii, p. 360.
^ "Code civil expliqud,*' vol. i, $ 371,
OPINIONS OF SIR ALEXANDER COCKBURN. 263
After distiDgaishing between culpa Id criminal and in civil cases, the
same learned writer says :
It is important, therefore, not ao much to distinguish the degree of culpaj but rather
to decide the starting-point at which respousibility for inattention and negligence
commences.
This starting-point is settled according to one rule for all those cases in which there
exists, not a simple responsibility for dolus, (and culpa lata,) but where culpa is to be
imputed ; culpa being admitted in those cases where the conduct falls short of the
measures which a diligens paterfamilias is in the habit of observing in his aifairs.
Only under some few obligatory conditions is a decision more favorable to the
debtor admissible, in so far that in these cases he is allowed to excuse himself from the
TL'saponsibility, by proof that iu his own affairs he is by habit equally negligent.^
*' The ordinary conduct o£ an intelligent, prudent, and careful Haus-
vatCTy of a * bonus et diligens paterfamilias,' " says Rivier in the Rechts-
lexicon of Holzeudorft*, "afifords the normal measure of the obligation of
diligence. He who so conducts himself is in general free from all
reproach. If he acts otherwise, he is in culpa and responsible.'"^
"The measure," says Dr. Windscheid, "by which to determine
whether particular conduct is open to the charge of negligence or not
\s the conduct of men in general."^
Professor linger, in his "System des osterreichischen allgem. Privat-
rechts,"* thus writes of culpa levis, according to Austrian law:
Culpa UrcU consists in the omission of that care which an attentive and judicious
head of a family regularly observes, (diligentia diligentis pairiefamiliaa.) The want of
this care, this kind of culpa, is generally understood, when speaking merely of over-
fti^bt, of culpa simply. The observance of a higher degree of care than this is not re-
quired; this IH the lightest otfeuse for which a man can be made responsible ; a culpa
Urifisima, going beyond culpa levis, does not exist either according to general or to Aus-
trian law. The culpa levis forms the boundary of responsibility. It is by itself omnis
ri/pa; on the other side of this limit begins the province of acctdenf, for which the
actors are not held liable.
The civil code treats of this culpa levis in $ 1297, where it states the highest de-
;i^reeof diligence and attention required to be that ** which can be exercised by ordinary
capacities.*' The omission of this care forms the lightest offense for which any one
ran be held responsible. By the diligence and attention *^ which can be exercised by
ordinary capacities'' must, however, be understood what, in another place, the code
cjklls the attention ^'of a trusty and diligent head of a family,'' the care " of a good
householder."
Stubenraueh, in his commentary on the Austrian code, treats the
whole subject of culpa with much ability and learning. He ends by
raying :
It is to be assumed that every man who is in possession of his faculties, is capable of
that degree of diligence and attention which can be exercised by men of ordinary ca-
pacity. Whoever by the absence of this diligence and care causes injury to another,
• ucurs liability.*
Mr. Justice Story, with the good sense which characterizes his
writings, says :
Common or ordinary diligence is that degree of diligence which men in general exert
iu respect to their own concerns. It may be said to be the common prudence which
men of business and heads of families usually exhibit in affairs which are interesting
to them; or, as Sir William Jones has expressed it, it is the care which every person of
(Simmon prudence and capable of governmg a family takes of his own concerns. It is
obvious that this is adopting a very variable standard, for it still leaves much ground
for doubt as to what is common prudence, and who is capable of governing a lamUy.
But the difficulty is intrinsic in the nature of the subject, which aomits of an approxi-
mation only to certainty. Indeed, what is common or ordinary diligence is more a mat-
ter of fact than of law, and in every community it must be judged of by the actual
* " Beitriige," &c., vol. iii, p. 360.
«"Recht8lexicon," vol. i, tit. *' Culpa."
^Windscheid, '^Lehrbuch des Pandektenrechts," Band 1, p. 256.
*^1. ii, p. 243.
* Slubenrauch, "Comm. zum allg. ost. B. Gesetzbuch," pp. 1294-97.
264 ARBITRATION AT GENEVA.
state of society^ the habits of bnsiness, the general nsages of life, and the changes, a§
well as the institutions, peculiar to the a^e. So that, although it may not be possible
to lay down any very exact rule, applicable to all times and all circumstances, yet
that may be said to be common or ordinary diligence in the sense of the law whieh
men of common prudence generally exercise about their own atfairs in tbe age and
country in whicb they live. It will thence follow, that in different times and in dif-
ferent countries, the standard is necessarily variable with respect to the facts, althoogh
it may be uniform with respect to the principle ; so that it may happen that the same
acts which, in one country, or in one age, may be deemed negligent acts, may, at an-
other timo, or in another countrj^ be justly deemed an exercise of ordinary diligence.
What is usually done \)y prudent men in a particular country in respect to things of
a like nature, whether it be more or less, iu point of diligence, than what is exact^in
another country, becomes in fact the general measure of diligence.*
The same standard is, in practice, applied in the English law. The
older authorities, indee<l, speak of tliree degrees of negligence,
and of "gross" negligence as being necessary in some cases
to found liability ; but the tendency of modern decisions has been to
apply in all cases the sound, i>ractical rule that in determining the ques-
tion of negligence, the true test is whether there has been, with refer-
ence to the particular subject-matter, that reasonable degree of diligence
and care which a man of ordinary prudence and capacity might be ex-
pected to exercise in the same circumstances. (See what is said by Tin-
dal, L. C. J., in Vaughan vs. Menlow, (3 B. N. C, 475 ;) by Parke, B.,
in Wyld rs. Pickford, (8 M. and W., 461 ;) by Cresswell, J., in Austin
vs. Manchester, 8hettield and Lincolnshire Railway, (IOC. B., 454;) and
by Rolfe, B., in Wilson vs. Brett, (11 M. and W., 115.)
While, however, I thus seek in the writings of jurists, and the law ot
different nations, some standard for the measure of diligence, I readily
concede that the application of that standard must depend on the cir-
cumstances of each individual case, and on the view which tbe judge
may, in his conscience, form of how far the conduct of the individual
complained of may or may not have been that which ordinary prudence
and sense of duty would have prescribed. I entirely agree with what
is said by the learned editors of Zachariavs '' Droit civil fran^ais," on
article 1137 of the French code :
L'articlo 1137 so resume en nn conseil anx juges de n'avoir ni trop de rignenr ni
trop d'indnl^euee, et de ne demander an del)iteur que les soins raisounabletnent dds ^
la chose qu'il est cliarge de conserver ou de faire, soit ^ raison de sa nature, soil k rai-
son des circoustances variables -X I'intiui qui modiiicnt son obligation pour la rendre
on plus large ou plus dtroite.*
What is here said by the learned editors of Zachari® appears to me
to afford the true criterion. It is for the judge to determine, according
to the best of his judgment, with reference to the facts of the particular
case, and with reference to the thing to be done or left undone, whether
what has been done, or left undone, as the case may be, has been what
could reasonably and justly have been expected from a person of ordi-
nary capacity and prudence in the affairs of life. More than this is not
to be expected.
I have cited these authorities because, in the absence of any reference
s^mr prim ipic «iv to thc qucstiou of diligence among writers on international
pu«dio,mM.rnnuot. iftw, It sccms to me that the principle that prevails as to-
men^s conduct in the aff'airs of life may by analogy be well applied to
the discharge of its duties by a government. Applying this standard,
one nation has a right to expect from another, iu the fullillment of its
1 Story on Bailments, $ 14. $
^ Zacbarife, '* Droit civil fran^ais," edited by MM. Massd and Verg^, vol. iii, p. 400.
OPINIONS OF SIR ALEXANDER COCKBURN. 265
international obligations, the amount of diligence which may reasonably
be expected from a well-regulated, wise, and conscientious government,
according to its institutions, and its ordinary mode of conducting its
affairs ; but it has no right to expect more. The assertion of the obli-
gation of a neutral government, as stated in the American case, that
"the diligence is to be proportioned,'' not only to "the magnitude of
the subject," but also to " the dignity and strength of the power which
is to execute it," as though there could be one measure of diligence for a
powerful state, and another for a weak one — a diligence " which shall
prevent its soil from being violated" — which "shall deter designing
men," &c. — thus making the neutral government answerable for the
event — and " which prompts to the most energetic measures" — appears
to me much too* extensive, and altogether inadmissible.
The diligence required of a government to prevent infrac-
tions of neutrality may relate (1) to the state of its munici-
pal law ; (2) to the means possessed by it to prevent such infractions ;
(3) to the diligence to be used in the application of such means to the
end desired.
As to the law, the subject maj' be divided into the prohibitive law, or,
as it is termed in the American case, the punitive law, and i.:.-
the preventive law — that is, the law whereby the government is armed
with the power and means of prevention.
As regards the prohibitive or punitive law, no difficulty can arise. It
is plain that, to satisfy the exigency of due diligence, and to escape lia-
bility, a neutral government must take care, not only that its municipal
law shall prohibit acts contravening neutrality, but that the law shall
be upheld by the sanction of adequate punishment — that is to say, of
such as may reasonably be expected to deter persons from offending
against it.
As regards the preventive law, doubtless a government should be
armed b^' law with power to prevent an infraction of the Mrrtn^.i d,siK.8ai«.«
law, when it knows, or has reasonable ground to believe, G.ver,nr.«L
that such infraction is about to take place.
But when we come to the question of the means which by law should
be placed at the disposal of the government, difficulties of a very for
midable character immediately present themselves.
The more despotic and unlimited the power of a government, the more
efficacious will be the means at its command for preventing acts which
it is desired to prevent.
Is this a reason, in a country where absolute and unlimited power is
unknown, where every power is exercised in subordination to the law,
and where, for any interference by the government with the rights of
person or property, redress may immediately be sought, for investing
the executive with an absolute and irresponsible power, at variance with
the whole tenor and spirit of the national institutions, in order to pro-
tect a belligerent from the possibility of injury from a violation of neu-
trality ?
Again, a nation has a system of procedure which is in harmony with
its institutions, and with which it is satisfied. According to that system,
persons against whom the law is to be put in force cannot be subjected
to be interrogated in order to establish their criminality. Proof must
first be produced, from which, while it remains unanswered, a presump-
tion of guilt arises, before they can be called upon for a defense. Be-
caase a different system might be more efficacious in enabling the gov-
ernment to establish aca^se for confiscating a suspected vessel, for the
266 ARBITRATION AT GENEVA.
protection of a belligerent, is the legislature called upon to change the
law because other nations become involved in war ?
Again, the government of a country has been carried on for years ac-
cording to an established system of official routine. This system may
be somewhat complicated, and may render the action of the executive
less speedy than it might otherwise be. But it is safe, and has been
found to work sufficiently well in carrying on the affairs of the nation
at home and abroad. Because a more rapid and a more direct action on
the i^oint to be reached might be obtained by a simplification of the
official machinery, is a government to be held guilty of negligence, be-
cause, not foreseeing what was about to happen, it had not altered its
ministerial arrangements accordingly ?
A government, in all matters involving legal consideration, is in the
habit of consulting and acting under the advice of lawyers specially
appointed to advise it. The purpose is the laudable one of insuring the
perfect legality of the proceedings of the government ; but this advan-
tage necessarily involves some loss of time, during which the action of
the executive is for the moment suspended. Is this practice inconsist-
ent with the diligence required of a neutral government I Honestly
intending to do what was right, is it to be held responsible because a
vessel equipped for war has taken advantage of such a delay, though
perhaps, in the particular instance, accidentally prolonged f
I can only answer these questions in the negative. I do so on the
ground, as to some of them, that they are things which no government
could reasonably be asked to do ; as to all, that they were not snch
things as a government of ordinary prudence and sagacity, carrying on
its affiiirs in the usual way in which the affairs of governments are
carried on, could have foreseen the necessity of providing for.
Passing from the law, and the means which the law should place at the
Artton of lo^ern- dlsposal of a govcmment, to enable it to repress intended
u.^nt. violations of neutrality on the part of its subjects, to the
action of the government in the use of such means, it seems to me that
two things are incumbent on a government :
1st. Tbat it shall use due diligence to inform itself, by the use of the
means at its disposal, whether a violation of the law is about to be com-
mitted ; and,
2d. That, being satisfied of the fact, it shall use due diligence in ap-
plying its means and power of prevention.
These conditions honestly and bona fids satisfied, no government, as
it seems to me, can be held liable for the acts of its subjects, but such
acts must be deemed to be beyond the reach of any control which it can
reasonably be expected to exercise.
But here questions of great importance, and of equal difficulty, pre-
sent themselves :
(1.) Is a government, intending faithfully to discharge its duty
toward another government, to be held responsible for a mere error of
judgment? As, for instance, in thinking a vessel not liable, in point
of law, to seizure, when in fact she was so ; or in thinking the evidence
in a particular case insufficient when it was sufficient.
(2.) Is a government wanting in due diligence if it declines to seize a
vessel at the instance of a belligerent, when properly satisfied that,
though there may be circumstances of a suspicious character, the only
evidence which can be adduced will not justify the seizure before the
law, and that the vessel will therefore be released f
(3.) Having seized a vessel, and brought the matter before the proper
legal authority, is a government to beheld responsible because, through
OPINIONS OF SIR ALEXANDER COCKBURN. 267
some mistake of the court, either of law or fact, there has been a mis-
carriage of justice!
(4.) Is it to be answerable for accidental delay, through which an op-
portunitj' becomes aflForded to a vessel to evade the eventual decision of
the government to seize her f
(5.) Is a government to be held responsible for error of judgment in
its subordinate officers, especially when these officers are at great dis-
tance, and not acting under its immediate control ! Is it, under such
circumstances, to be answerable for their possible negligence, or even
for their misconduct !
These are matters of infinite importance to neutral nations, who may
he drawn within the vortex of wars in which they have no concern, if
they are not only to be harassed and troubled by the demands and im-
portunities of jealous and angry belligerents, but are, in addition, to be
held responsible — to the extent, perhaps, of millions — for errors of
judgment, accidental delay, judicial mistake, or misconduct of sub-
ordinate officers, acting not only without their sanction, but possibly
in direct contravention of their orders.
We are not informed whether the two governments have, in compli-
ance with the pledge contained in the treaty of Washington, invited
other nations to adopt its rules ; but if it is to l)e established that these
rules carry with them a liability so extensive, I should very much doubt
whether such an invitation, if made, would be attended with much
success.
Any decision of this tribunal founded on such a liabilit}' would have
the effect, I should imagine, of making maritime nations look upon bel-
ligerent powers with very considerable dread.
It is to be remembered that a government cannot be taken to guaran-
tee the event ; in other words, to be answerable at all hazards and under
all circumstances for a breach of neutrality by a subject, if it occurs. In
spite of the law, and of the vigorous administration of the law, offenses
will take place, and neither at home nor abroad can rulers be held, under
. all circumstances answerable to those who suffer from them. All that
can be expected of the government of a country is that it shall possess
reasonable means to prevent offenses, and use such means honestly and
diligently for the benefit of those who are entitled to its protection.
The terms of the treaty, which require no more than " due diligence,"
exclude all notion of an absolute unconditional responsibility. This is
evidently the meaning of an observation of the British counsel at the
close of the fifth section of his argument on " due diligence,'' which
the president of the tribunal appears to have found some difficulty in
understanding.
This being so, I have some difficulty in saying that a government act-
ing in good faith, and desiring honestly to fulfill its obliga- ^^^^^^ of udm^t.
tions, can be held liable for errors of judgment, unless,
indeed, these are of so patent a character as to amount to crassa neg-
Prolonged and unnecessary delay is, in the very nature of things, in-
compatible with diligence. But delay, within reasonable
limits, honestly intended for the investigation of facts or
the due consideration of the proper course to be pursued, is not so. De-
lay arising simply from accident ought not to be imputed as negligence.
Accident can never be made the ground of an imputation of negligence,
though it may found a legal claim where a party is in mora.
As regards the seizure of a vessel under the foreign-enlistment act,
with a knowledge that the evidence would be insufficient to s-,.,.n. «f ve»^^i*.
268 ARBITRATION AT GENEVA.
justify it, I hold that sach a seizure, whether for the purpose of further-
ing the ends of a belligerent^ or because some suspicion might attach to
the vessel, would have been unjustifiable both in policy and principle.
For no government can be called upon to institute legal proceedings
under such circumstances. Every government prosecution which ends
in failure, is, in itself, productive of mischief. It lessens the authority of
the executive by making it appear to have acted harshly and unjustly,
and creates sympathy, perhaps unmerited, for parties against whom its
eflforts have been directed, and who have escaped from its pursuit. It
impairs the authority of the law by leading to the belief that it may be
infringed with impunity, thereby holding out encouragement to crime.
A government would be acting in violation of the spirit of the constitu-
tion, as well as against law and right, if it seized a vessel, the property
of a subject, unless it believed such vessel to be justly and legally liable
to condemnation on legal and sufticient proof. Moreover, such a pro-
ceeding would be useless as well as arbitrary. The government would
be unable to defer indefinitely the decision of the question, but, on the
contrar3% would be bound to submit the Qasc to the proper tribunal at
the earliest practicable moment. In the case supposed, the result would
necessarily be that the vessel must be released and allowed to depart
unmolested.
It must be borne in mind that the British government possesses no
despotic or arbitrary power. It could neither assume nor exercise such
a power, even to protect ajjelligerent or maintain its own neutrality.
As regards any miscarriage of justice in matters within the sphere of
J... ...Ml n....«r. the inunicii)al law, it appears to me utterly out of the ques-
'•"*'■ tion to hold that a government, having done what in it lay,
as by seizing a vessel and bringing it properly before the competent
court, can be held liable because, through some mistake or accident,
justice may have been defeated.
A breach of the law having been committed in the equipping or arm-
ing of a vessel for belligerent purposes, all that the government conld
do, under the foreign-enlistment act, was to seize the delinquent vessel,
and bring it into a proper court for condemnation. This done, and the
evidence of the facts in such a case having been submitted by the public
prosecutor to the court, the functions of the government are at an end.
It can do no more. The rest is with the law. lu England, in America,
in every well-constituted and well-regulated state, the executive and
judiciary i)owers are separated by a broad and impassable barrier.
There is no authority in the state, however high, that would venture to
interfere with the discharge of the judicial office. It would be consid-
ered a violation of the most sacred principles, and an outrage on all
propriety, to seek to control, or even to influence, directly or indirectly,
the decision of a judge, even of the most inferior tribunal.
This being so, the government of a neutral cannot justly or reason-
ably be held responsible for all the mischief which a vessel, equipped in
violation of its law, may do throughout the course of, possibly, a pro-
tracted war because a suit which it has properly instituted fails through
a mistake of the judge. To decide in the affirmative would be to estab-
lish a rule hitherto unknown, and calculated to impose on neutral states
a degree of responsibility altogether unprecedented and unheard of.
As regards liability for the acts or omissions of subordinate officers,
r..ai .i.ty for .cu it seems to me that, while a government may properly be
of But.or.).n«tr.. ^^jj responsiblc for what is done, or omitted to be done, by
its orders or under its own immediate control, it would be most unreas-
onable to hold it answerable for the acts or negligences of subordinates,
OPINION'S OF SIR ALEXANDER COCKBURN. 269
lit all events, unless it afterward ratifies and adopts what these may
aave done.
lu the matter of civil rights individuals may be liable for the negli-
;;enceof those to whom they depute the conduct of their affairs; but,
cousidering the complicated machinery of political government, especi-
ally when distant colonies and dependencies are concerned, and the
ronsequent necessity of employing subordinate officers, it would be
unreasonable and unjust to hold that the negligence of a subordinate,
more especiall3' from mere error of judgment, as, for instance, in allowing
a vessel to take too much coal, was a want of "due diligence" on the
part of the government, for which it can justly be held liable.
The following passage from the British Counter-Case sums up so well
the different sides of this question, that I do not hesitate to produce it
at length :
That doe diligence requireaa government to use all the mtmns in its power, U a pro-
position trae in one sense, false in another; true, if it means that the govt^rnment is
iKHind to exert honestly and with reasonable care and activity the means at its dispo-
rt; false, impracticable, and absurd, if it means that a liability arises whenever it is
possible to show that an hour has been lost which might have been gained, or an acci-
dental delay incurred which might, by the utmost foresight, have been prevented ;
that an expedient which might nave succeeded has not dccu tried ; that means ot
obtaining information which are deemed unworthy or improper have not been resorted
to; or that the exertions of an officer or servant of government have not been tiixed
to the utmost limit of his physical capacity.
Nor can we fail to observe that, in proportion as we extend the duty of prevention
incumbent on neutral governments, from hostile enterprises which are open and fla-
<;raDt to acts of a more doubtful character which border on the line betwixt the lawful
and the unlawful, it becomes more and more difficult to exact from the neutral, in the
performance of that duty, peculiar and extraordinary vigilance and activity. The
duty of preventing the open assembling within neutral territory of an armed hostile
expedition against a neighboring country is plain and obvious, and requires only a
prompt exercise of adequate force. But it is otherwise when we come to acts of a
iiitferent class, the criminality of which depends on a latent intention ; such, for exam-
ple, as the mere procuring for belligerent purposes from the yards of a neutral ship-
builder, whose ordinary business it is to build ships of all kinds for customers of all
nations, a ve»sel with some special adaptation for war. There is nothing in the rela-
tion of a neutral to a belligerent to cast on the former the duty of exercising within
bin own territory a constant and minute espionage over ordinary transactions of com-
nierce for the protection of the latter. This relation, always onerous to the neutral, is,
Jittiie same time, it must be remembered, purely involuntary on his part. It is forced
on him by the q^uarrels of his neighbors in which he has no concern, or by their inter-
nal discords when those discords break out into civil war. ^
While I readily admit that the measure of diligence which a govern-
^nept applies to the affairs it has to administer, if the ordinary course
of its administration is negligent and imperfect, is not necessarily to be
taken — any more than it would be in the case of an individual — as the
measure of diligence which it is to apply in the discharge of interna-
tional obligations, yet credit should be given to a government for a
properly diligent discharge of public duty.
Furthermore, if a given law and a particular system of administra-
tion have been found by practical experience sufficient to protect the
interests of the gov^ernment in the important matter of the public reve-
nue, and also to insure the observance of neutral duties on the occasion
of all former wars, surely it is highly unreasonable and unjust to con-
tlemn the whole system as defective, "and the government as negligent,
tor not having amended it in anticipation of future events.
It must not be forgotten that, since the passing of the British statute,
wars have occurred in all parts of the world, but no complaints of the
violation of that statute have occurred till American citizens had
reconrse to new modes of defeating or evading it.
^ British Counter-Caae, page 23.
270 ARBITRATION AT GENEVA.
Such, in my opinion, are the principles by which we should be guided
in deciding whether Great Britain has or has not failed to satisfy the
requirements of due diligence. I proceed to apply them to the different
heads of complaint preferred by the United States.
One main head of complaint on their part is that the municipal law
Muniri,.Hi la* of of Grcat Britain, as contained in the foreign-enlistment
Ufrni Br.u m. jj^j^ ^,g^g insufficicut to cnablo the British government to
enforce the observance of the duties of neutrality by its subjects. We
have first a general condemnation of English acts of Parliament
" English acts," we are told, " are so overloaded with a mass of phrases,
alike unprecise and confused, with so much of tedious superfluity ot
immaterial circumstances, as if they were specially designed to give
scope to bar chicanery, to facilitate the escape of offenders, and to
embarrass and confound tbe officers of the government charged with
the administration of law. Such, indeed, has been the ordinary com-
plexion of the legislation of Great Britain, and this style of complex
verbosity of legislation has unhappily been tf'ausmitted to the United
States." But then we have the satisfaction of learning that '* there it
begins to encounter steady efforts of reformation, which are conspicuous
in the legislation of many of the American States.*
Of the foreign-enlistment act we are told that '' its practical ineffi-
ciency was glaringly apparent on the face of all the relative diplomatic
correspondence between Great Britain and the United States."
That it was '' valueless, except as occasion should arise to make it
serve as a pretext to cover, in diplomatic communic>ation with other
governments, indifference, unfriendly, or hostile animus on the part of
some British minister."
British ministers are represented as " floundering along in the flat
morass of the meaningless verbosity and confused circumlocution of an
act of Parliament." They are represented as having been "compelled
to drift into the condition of foreign war rather than break free from
, the entanglement of the cobweb meshes of that a<5t."
It strikes me that those who address us in this strange style must
suppose us to be ignorant that the English act of 1819 was framed on
the model of the American act of 1818 ; that it is, in the main, identical
in language, and is, in one, and that an important particular, more
stringent than its predecessor.
The English act, in the part.of it with which we are concerned, makes
it an offense to ^' equip, furnish, fit out, or arm, withiu tbe
^K«n.,<,.rni,Mmtnt United Kiugdom or the Queen's dominions, without the
royal license first obtained, any ship or vessel, with the in-
tent, or in order that such ship or vessel shall be employed in the ser-
vice of any foreign prince, state, or potentate, or of Siuy foreign colony,
province, or part of any province or people, or of any person or persons
exercising or assuming to exercise any powers of government in or over
any foreign state, colony, province, or part of any province or i)eople,
as a transport or storeship, or with intent to cruise or commit hostili-
ties against any prince, &c., &c., with whom the Queen is not at war."
To attempt to equip, &c., any such ship or vessel with a like intent, or
to procure it to be done, as well as knowingly to aid and assist, or be
concerned in so doing, is equally made an offense. The penalty at-
tached to the offense is fine and imprisonment, or either of them, at the
discretion of the court, and the forfeiture of the vessel, with all its ac-
cessories, and of all materials, arms, ammunition, and stores which
'Uuited St.'ttes Argament-i p. 61.
OPINIONS OF SIR ALEXANDER COCKBURN. 271
may be found on board, on the vessel being prosecuted and condemned ;
sach prosecution and condemnation being directed to be had ^^ in like
manner, and in such courts, as ships and vessels may be prosecuted and
condemned for any breach of the laws for the protection of the revenues
of customs and excise, or of the laws of trade and navigation."
So much for the prohibitive or punitive part of the law. The pre-
ventive part consists in a provision that the ship or vessel
may be seized by any officer of Her Majesty^s customs or prev«tiT» uw.
excise, or any officer of the royal navy, who is by law em-
powered to make seizures for any forfeiture incurred under the revenue
laws, or laws relating to trade or navigation, within the limits of their
particular jurisdictions.
On comparing the enactment relating to the fitting out of ships with
the corresponding enactment of the American statute, it
will be found that the English act, on which so much vitu- Am«mTn'.al " '**
perative criticism has been lavished, is, in fact, as regards
the equipment of vessjels, more comprehensive and effective than the
former. For, while the English statute makes it an offense to equip or
arm, in the disjunctive, by the American statute the offense consists in
fitting out and arming, in the conjunctive, thus bringing the vessel a
stage further on toward belligerent completion before the law can in-
ter|)ose.
It is true that the judges in the court of exchequer having been
divided in opinion, in the case of the Alexandra, as to whether the arm-
ing of a vessel was not necessary before the intent that she should be
employed for belligerent purposes could be inferred, the result in that
CcLsewa^ that the more comprehensive enactment of the English statute
ftnled in its effect. But when it is said, in somewhat strong language,
that the ettect of the decision in the Alexandra case was to " emascu-
late" the English statute, it must be observed that, if such was the case,
the effect was only to reduce the English act to the condition in which
the American statute had been from its birth. I think it unnecessary,
on the present occasion, to express any opinion on the question on
which the judges of the court of exchequer were divided. I will only,
in passing, repeat my conviction that neither the American nor the
English statutes were ever intended to interfere with the execution of
orders from belligerents by American or British ship-builders, but sim-
ply to prevent the ports of the respective countries from being used for
fitting out privateers, or being made the base of hostile expeditions.
But the distinction between equipping and arming, and equipping with-
out arming, is immaterial for the present purpose ; for, in point of fact,
that distinction never created any difficulty in the action of the British
government. In the cases both of the Florida and the Alabama, the
only question on which the action of the government was arrested was
as to the sufficiency of the evidence of the vessel being intended for the
service of a belligerent.
But it is with reference to the preventive powers conferred on the
Executive by these acts that the case and argument of p„.r,.„t.»rpow.r*
the United States principally assail the British statute, Jii'^^Vi''"**^"""
and triumphantly assert the superiority of the American
act ; maintaining that, while the British act depends on the sanction
of penalties, the American act places power in the hands of the Execu-
tive which effectually secures it against infraction of the law.
Acquainted with the two acts, I read, I must say, with much surprise,
the following passage in the argument of the United States :
The great dlfiereoce between the two consiBts in the cardinal fact that the proviaions
272 ARBITRATION AT GKNEVA.
of the British act are merely punitivej and to be carried into effect only by judicial in-
Htrumentality ; whereas the American act is preventive, calls for executive action, and
places in the hands of the President of the United States the entire military and naval
force of the Government, to be employed by him in his discretion for the* prevention
of foreign equipments and foreign enlistments in the United States.^
This appears to me a thoroughly inaccurate representation of tbe
effect of the American act, which, as I understand it, confers no dis-
cretionary- power on the President beyond that of employing the mili-
tary or naval forces of the republic to support the law, if necessary,
lieferring to the different violations of neutrality made offenses by the
act, the 8th section provides that —
In every case in which a vessel shall be fitted ont and armed, or attempted to be
iitted out and armed, or in which the force of any vessel of war, cruiser, or other armed
vessel shall be increased or augmented, or in which any military expedition or enter-
prise shall be begun or set on foot, contrary to the provisions and prohibitions of thiii
act; and in every case of the capture of a ship or vessel within the jurisdiction or pro-
tection of the United States as before defined; and in every case in which any process
issuing out of any court of the United States shall be disobeyed or resisted by any per-
son or persons having the custody of any vessel of war, cruiser, or other armed vessel
of any foreign prince or state, or of any colony, district, o^ people, or of any embjects
or citizens of any foreign prince or state, or of any colony, district, or people, it shall
be lawful for the President of the United States, or such otlier person as he sbaU have
empowered for that purpose, to employ such part of the land or naval forces of the
United States, or of the militia thereof, for the purpose of taking possession of and
detaining any such ship or vessel, with her prize or prizes, if any, in order to the exe-
cution of the prohibitions and penalties of this act, and to the restoring the prize or
prizes in the cases in which restoration shall have been adjudged, and also for the
purpose of preventing the carrying on any such expedition or enterprise from the terri-
tories or jurisdiction of the United States against the territories or dominions of any
foreign prince or state, or of any colony, district, or people, with whom the United
States are at peace.
To any one who reads this section with any degree of attention, its
meaning, I think, must be clear. No arbitrary power is given to the
President, nor any power of seizing a vessel at all, except *' in order to
the execution of tJie prohibitions and penalties of the act,^ No discretion-
ary power whatever is given him except that of using force, where force
is required, for overcoming resistance.
The enactment was contained in the original act of 1794, which was
passed shortly after the French minister, Genet, had set the Govern-
ment at defiance, and threatened to resist by force any attempt to detain
a privateer illegally armed in the port of Philadelphia^ and after the
French vice-consul at Boston had actually rescued by force a suspected
vessel which had been seized by the United States authorities.
The section was obviously directed against the repetition of such an
occurrence, and was necessary to enable the President to use the forces
of the state on a sudden emergency without having recourse to the
Senate. The section gives the President no power which he would
not have had without it, except where recourse to actual force is
necessary. It is an entire misrepresentation to say that he has a
discretionary power to seize and detain a vessel without bringing her
before the "proper court for adjudication. His power is to employ
the state force, if necessary', among other things, to seize a vessel,
" in order to the execution of the prohibitions and penalties of the act^
which implies that the vessel must be submitted, in the usual course, to
the proper legal process to decide on her condemnation or release.
Often as the action of the Government was invoked by the governments
of Spain and Portugal, during their colonial wars, to prevent the arm-
ing of vessels in the ports of tbe United States, frequent as have been
Argument of the Uuited States, p. 5;^
OPINIONS OF SIR ALEXANDER COCKBURN. 273
the raids and hostile expeditions from American territory since, no in-
stauce has been adduced of the exercise of this alleged discretionary
l)ower by a President of seizing a vessel and keeping her, without put-
ting the matter into due course of law, and I feel tolerably couddent
that no such instance has ever occurred.
Instances may have occurred, as in the case of the Spanish gun-boats
building at New York in 1869, in which it was considered necessary to
I^rovide for the use of force to arrest ships believed to be about to go
forth on military expeditions ; but such seizures have been followed by
the ordinary course of legal procedure and inquiry, or the intended ex-
pedition having been prevented or else abandoned, the vessel has been,
restored without any further proceeding. Instances have no doubt
occurred in which vessels have been seized by order of the President,
as head of the executive, as vessels might be seized by order of Her
Majesty's government ; but this Xras only that the statute might be put
in force. In like manner vessels may have been seized under the ordi-
nary civil authority, and it being found that there was no sufficient case
against them, may have been set free. But no instiince, I believe, has
occurred, except where force wa« actually necessary, of the seizure of a
vessel by a President, in the mere exercise of executive power, sus-
l»ending the ordinary action of the law. No example of such a proceed-
ing has been, or, I believe, can be, adduced, with the single exception of
the case of Gelston vs. Hoyt, to which I am about to refer, in which the
experiment to exercise such a power was tried and failed.
By the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, in the
last-mentioned case, which is reported in the 4th volume of Curtis's
Keports, page 228, the view I have taken of the effect of the American
act is conclusively borne out. An action having been brought by a
shipowner against a civil officer for the seizure and detention of a ship,
the defendant pleaded the order of the President, but the plea was held
bad. In giving judgment, Mr. Justice Story says :
The argument is that, as the President has authority, bj' the act, to employ the naval
and military forces of the United States for this purpose, a fortiori he mi«;ht do it by
the employment of civil force. But, upon the most deliberate consideratiou, we are of
a (]iff(?rcut opinion. The power thns inlrusted to the President is of a very hij^h and
delicate nature, and manifestly intended to l>e exercised only when, by the ordiuary
process or exercise of civil authority, th« p:irpo»es of the law cannot be eftectuated.
if is to be exerted on extraordijiary occasions, and subject to that high responsibility
wiiich all executive acts necessarily involve. VVhenever it is extorted, all persons who
act ill obedience to the execntive iustrnctions in castas within the act are completely
justified ID taking possession of and detaiuing the otfending vessel, and are not respou-
Mble in daniages for any injury which the party may suffer by reiison of anch pioceed-
iD«5. Surely, it never could have been the intention of Congress that snch a power
shotdd be allowed as a shield to the seizing officer in cases where that seizure miglit be
made by the ordinary civil means. One of the cases put in the section is, where any
proc4*88 of the courts of the United States is disobeyed and resisted ; and this case
abundantly ^how that the authority of the President was not intended to be called
into exercise, unless where military and naval forces were necessary to insure the exe-
cuti<m of the laws. In terms, the section is confined to the employment of naval and
military forces ; and there is neither public policy nor principle to justify an extension
of the prerogative beyond the terms in which it is given. Congress might be perfectly
willing to intrust the President with the power to take and detain, whenever, in his
opinion, the case was so flagrant that military or naval force were necessary to enforce
tbe laws, and yet with great projiriety deny it where, from the circumstances of the
ease, the civil officers of the Government might, upon their private responsibility,
without any danger to the public peace, completely execute them. It is certainly against
the genenil theory of our institutions to create great discretionary powers by implica-
tion ; and in the present instance we see nothing to jnstify it.
I caunot help expressing my surprise that, with this decisiou before
them, American lawyers should have submitted so iucorrect a statement
to this tribuual. It', indeed, what is meant is that the power of the
18 B
274 ARBITRATION AT GENEV^A.
President to use tbe forces of the State to prevent forcible violations of
neiitralitv gives any superior efficacy to the American system, the an-
swer is that which has been i^iven by Sir R. Palmer in his most able
arjifument, namely, that in all cases similar to those referred to in the
American act, the sovereign of Great Britain possesses full power to
use force, civil or military, such as the case may call for.
The first American neutrality act of 1794 was silent as to the author-
ity by whom vessels infringing the law should be seized, proceedings
being apparently left to be taken by any person choosing to become an
informer, to whom half the penalty and half the forfeited property is to
go. From the case of Gelston vs. Hoy t, just cited, it however appeal's
that at the time that cause was decided, in all cases of the forfeiture of
vessels the duty of seizure devolved on the officers of customs. Intliis
respect, therefore, the practice of the two countries would be the same.
Loud complaints having been made, by the representatives of Spain
and Portugal, of the number of privateers fitted out and manned, from
ports of the Union, by American citizens, and preying on the commerce
of the two countries, under commissions from the revolted colonies, a
new statute was passed in 1818, wliich, in addition to the enactments of
the act of 1794, which otherwise remained the same, contained two new
provisions.
Section 10 provided that : —
The owners or consignees of evory armed ship or vessel sailing ont of the ports of tli"
Tuited iStates, belonging wholly or in part to citizens thereof, shall enter into bond t<'
the United States, with sntlicient snretius, prior to clearing out the same, in double thf
nniouut of the value of the vessel and cargo on board, including her armament, that
the said ship or vessel shall not be employed by such owners to cruise or commit ho-*-
tilities against the subjects, citizens, or property of any foreign prince or state, or of
any colony, district, or people, with whom the United States are at peace.
By section 11 special power was given to collectors of customs —
To detain any vessel manifestly built for warlike purposes, and about to depart
the United States, of which the cargo shall principally consist of arms and muniti<Mi>
of war, when tho number of num shipped on board, or other circumstances, shall
render it probable that such vessel is intended to bo employed by the owner or owners
to cruise or commit hostilities upon the subji'cts, citizens, or property of any foreijju
state, or of any c<dony, district, or people with'whom the United States are at peace, un-
til the decision of the President be had thereon, or until the owner or owners shall fjivr
huch bond and security as is recjuired of the owners of armed ships by the preceding
section af this act.
But the power thus given would evidently not apply to the ca«e we
have here to deal with, of vessels leaving equipped, but without au
armament, and having no arms or munitions of war on board.
In like manner the l)onding clause just quoted (section 10) applies
only to armed ships, and therefore would equally have been unavailable.
Besides which, it ai)plies only to ships belonging in whole or in part to
American citizens, and would therefore obviously have no application
to a ship sold to a foreign government.
But though it is an entire mistake to say that the American act of
1818 was in any respect superior to the British act of the ensuing year,
it is true that, since the time the American act was passed, the working
of the legal administration in the United States has become, for the
purpose of proceeding against a suspected vessel, in one respect better
than that of Great Britain. It api)ears that in each district of tbe
United States there is a resident legal officer of the Federal Goveru-
ment, called the district attorney, to whom, if the action of the Gov
ernment is invoked, a question of this kind is referred, and whose duty
it is to ascertain the facts, collect the evidence, and report to the Gov
ernment. Such an officer is, no doubt, better adapted to such a purpose
OPINIONS OF SIR ALEXANDER COCKBURN. 275
tlian a collector of customs. But can it be said to have been the dutv
ot'the British goverument, not having similar district officers, to appoint
sncii, at the diti'erent ship-buihliug ports, with a view the better to
protect belligerents against ships being equipped or armed against
them f
Another advantage of the American system is, that the duty of adju-
(licaling in such a case devolves on a judge in the court of admiralty
instead of on a jury, who are sometimes apt to be swayed in favor of
their own countrymen when sued at the instance of foreigners. But
tills relates to the condemnation of vessels, not to their seizure. And
with the exception of the Florida and Alabama, every vessel the
soizure of which could be asked for, as instanced in the cases of the
Alexandra, the Pampero, and the iron-clad rams at Birkenhead was
seized and prevented from doing any harm to the commerce of the
Tnited States. The Alexandra, it is true, was released aft<^r trial in
Kngiand, but she was seized again at Nassau, and not liberated till after
the close of the war. Practically speaking, therefore, in the later
(uses, everything was accomplished which could have result<5d from
tiie most iHerfect machinery that could have been devised for such ^ pur-
pose.
Great stress is laid in the pleadings of the United States on the
British act of 1870, passed on the report of the neutrality
• oinmissioners. The act is held u[) as the standard of
iKMitral duty and of the requirements necessary to give eftect to it. No
donl)t that act introduced very material changes, and did much to
'iti'engthen the hands of the executive. It made it an offense to build,
or agree to build, or procure to be built, as well as to equip or arm. It
<li(l away with all question as to intent, by making it sufficient if the
l>arty doing any of these things knows, or even has reasonable cause
to believe, that the vessel will be employed in the service of a belliger-
ent. To dispatch a vessel with such intent, knowledge, or reasonable
raiise of belief, is added to the category of offenses. Still more le-
markable is the new proceeding introduced, in addition to the former
pHM^ess, for the condemnation of the vessel, for the purpose of testing
the character of a suspected ship. If the secretary of state, or chief
I'xecutive authority in any place, is satisfied that there is reasonable
and probable cause for believing that a ship within Her Majesty's do-
iiiiuions has been, or is being, built, commissioned, or equipi)e(l, contrary
to the act, and is about to be taken beyond the limits of such dominions,
he may issue his warrant to any officer of the customs, or public officer,
or commissioned officer of the army or navy, who is thereupon to seized
>earch, and detain the ship. The owner nmy apply, indeed, to the court
•>f admiralty for the restoration of the vessel ; biit it is incumbent upon
him, in order to obtain it, to establish that the act has not been cpntra-
veued. So that the order of procedure is reversed, instead of it being
necessary for the prosecutor to establish at all events a prima facie
<ase of guilt, the owner has, in the first instance, to establish innocence—
a proc4.*eding alien altogether to English juiisprudence.
N4» doubt these are great changes — possibly improvements. But is it
just to say that the pre-existing law was so essentially defective as that
tlie British nation can be held liable by reason of its imperfections "
liuw, like all other human institutions, is in a constant state of progress
ami change. New events, now conjunctures, new combinations of cir-
<*umstance.s, the lessons of experience, from time to time point out to
the lawgiver the necessity of altering the work of the past to adapt it
276 ARBITRATION AT GENEVA.
to the reqairements of the present. Is every amendnient of the law to
carry witb it the condeinnaiioii of the legislation which preceded it?
At all events, it does not lie in the mouths of Americans to say so in
the present instance. 1 have just passed their own law in review.
According to it, it is not an offense to build or equip a vessel unless it be
also armed ; knowledge, or reasonable ground of belief, is not, a« under
the act of 1870, sufficient; the intent must be proved. The inter-
mediate process given b}^ the latter act, and by which the burden of
proving the innocent character of the ship, in the first instance, is cast
on the owner, is unknown.
For all practical purposes, the neutrality laws of the United States
and of Great Britain, prior to the late war, were substantially the same.
With this model act now for two years before them, the United States
have done nothing to bring their law up to the standard of it. How
can they now, with any pretense of justice, ask that Great Britain shall
be tried by the test of a law which is as much in advance of their owu
present law as it is of the past law of Great Britain !
When, notwithstanding this, one reads in the United States argument
that J' the British government has stood obstinately on confessedly de-
fective legislation of neutrality ;" that '^ it is not yet emancipated from
the national prejudices which obstructed Mr. Canning;" that it "still
lags behind the United States in appreciation of the true princplesof
public law, which lie at the foundation of the relations of independent
sovereign states,'' it is difficult to ex[)ress the feeling which arises con-
sistently with the seriousness which belongs to the present occasion.
It is true that it is not the law of the United States, but that of Great
Britain, that is now on its trial. It may not be enough to say that if
Great Britain is black America is no whiter. It may not be enough to
say, as Great Britain might do in so many instances, " Si tn me iniqms
€8 judex ^ eodem ego te crimine condemnahoP Yet a comparison of the
respective laws of the two countries is by no means superfluous. For a re-
mark is here to be made, which applies also to many other parts of the
present controversy, namely, that the Government of the United States
can have no right to require more of that of Great Britain than it could
itself have rendered had the position of the two countries been re
versed, and Great Britain had been the belligerent and the United
States the neutral power. For, in the absence of convention, eqnality
and reciprocity lie at the very root of international obligations, and no
nation has a right to demand of another more than under the like cir-
cumstances it would have been able itself to render.
The statement I have quoted above from the United States argninent,
that " the British government has stood obstinately on coii-
nrn^mimViirof \\l fcsscdly dcfcctivc legislation of neutrality," refers, I v^-
aa rmn*"ihe"T".i sume, to tlic communications which passed during the war
between the government of Great Britiiin and that of the
United States on the subject of an amendment of the British foreign-
enlistment act. With respect to these communications, the facrs,
shortly stated, are as follows: In 1801, and again 186;5-'04, Mr. in
Adams suggested (in the first instance, with a view to check the British
colonial trade in articles contraband of war) that it might be of advan-
tage if the British legislature would pass an act similar to the teni
porary act passed by the United States in 1838, which had reference
only to expeditions or exports of arms (not carried by sea) between
the United States and any foreign territory conterminous with the
United States. The precedent of this legislation was actually followe<i
by Canada in 1864, when events made it requisite. Xo othei* reque.st
OPINIONS OF SIR ALEXANDER COCKBURN. 277
for an nlteration of this British law was at any time made on the part
of tlie United States.
On the 19th of December, 1862, Earl Russell wrote thus to Mr.
Adams :
I have tho honor to inform yoa that Her Majesty's government, after consultation
u-ith the law-ofhcers of the Crown, are of opinion that cartain amendments might be
iutitMluced into the fureign-enlistmeut act, which, if sanctioned by Parliament, would
have the effect of giving greater power to the executive to prevent the coFistniction,
ill British ports, of ships destined for the use of beUigerents. But Her Majesty's gov-
ernment consider that, before submitting any proposals of that sort to Parliament, it
\i'oiil(I be desirable that they should previously communicate with the Government of
the United States, and ascertain whether that Government is williug to make similar
aheratious in its own foreign-enlistment act, and that the amendments, like the original
statute, should, as it were, proceed pari passu in both countries.
I shall accordingly be ready to confer at any time with yon, and t4> listen to any sug-
gestions which yon may have to make by which the British foreign-enlistment act and
the corresponding statute of the United States maj be made more efficient for their
purpose.'
In reply to this overture, (which was received with equiil courtesy and
caution by the Government of the United States,) Mr. Adams was
instructed not to make any suggestions whatever, but to state (accord-
ing to Earl Kussell's report of the conversation) " that his Government
were ready to listen to any propositions Uer Majesty's government had
to make, but they did not see how their own law on this subject could
be improved," or (according to Mr. Adams's own report) that the Gov-
eniment of the United States considered their own law as " of very
sntticient vigor."* Earl Russell thereupon said that the cabinet, under
the advice of the lord chancellor, (Lord Westbury,) had come to the
same conclusion with reference to the law of Great Britain, " so that
no further proceedings need be taken at present on tho subject." Earl
Kussell's overture was not founded on any opinion of the insufficiency
of the British law for the perfonnauce of the international obligations
of Great Britain, but simply on the advice of the law-officers that cer-
tain amendments might be possible which would increase the power of
the executive government to deal with cases within the scope of that
law. There could be no possibility*, however, of carrying such amend-
ments through Parliament unless similar amendments had been simul-
taneonsly made in the law of the United States, and the reply of the
United States, throwing upon Great Britain the whole responsibility of
making propositions in the matter, gave no assurance that those propo-
sitions, if made, would lead to an3^ useful result. If anything had been
needed to confirm this impression, it would be found in Mr. Seward's
answer, when informe<l of what had passed. Writing to Mr. Adams on
the 2d of March, 1863, he says:
It remainH for this Government only to say that it will l>e your dnty to nrge npou
H»*r Majesty's government the desire anrt expectation of the President, that hencefor-
ward Her Majesty's government will take the necessary measures t:) enforce the execu-
tion of the law as faithfully as this Government has executed tlie corresponding statutes oj
'Ae IniteA States. ^
Xot content with instituting a comparison between the neutrality law
of Great Britain and that of the United States, the American comp.ri»on win.
case has gone on to compare both with the municipal law '^"•«""»*--
of other states ; which comparison it seeks, by some strange manipula-
tion, to turn in favor of the United States, though, as we have seen, the
law8 of the two countries were, at the time in question, substantially
the same.
' United States Appendix, vol. ii, p. 92.
-British Appendix, vol. vi, No. 1, p. 48; United States Documents, vol. i, p. 66d.
^United States Documents, vol. i, }}, 669.
278 ARBITRATION AT GEXEVA.
Having gone carefully through the laws of the leading maritime
nations, I find none in which the equipping or arming of vessels for the
use of a belligerent was, prior to the breaking out of the American civil
war, prohibited, except under circumstances which would make it ii
violation of neutrality according to international law. After the break-
ing out of the war, in one or two countries, as in France and Brazil, the
law in this respect was put on the same footing as the law of Great
Britain and America prior to tlie dispute. In some, as in Italy, it has
been altered since. In these cases the altered law is referred to in the
argument of the United States as though it had existed at the time of
the war.
In the laws of those states which had hitherto taken but little part
in maritime aft'airs, no law on the subject of equipping or
arming ships was perhaps to be expected. I only observe,
therefore, as it were in passing, that Austria had no law relative to
this subject.
In answer to an inquiry made on the part of Fler Majesty's govern
ment, the Austrian minister for foreign affairs thus responds:
Apart from the principles which lio afc the foundation of this declaration, (thedfc-
larution of Paris of L^oH,; tJiere exists, however, no law in Austria, nor an> othiT onlir
j^enerally binding, which could be unule to apply to violations of neutrality bj* Austrian
Hubjccts.
The imperial f^overnment have endeavored to supply this want in eases of war
between other Stntts, by promul«;ating in legal forms special ^egu]ation^s for t lie pres«-r-
vation of neutrality appIieaMe onlj' to the war in question. Thus, in the y<'ar l^^.Vt, in
consequence of the war then existing, the ministerial ordonnance of May'irj, 1H54, wa>
promulgated, of whicli copy is inclosed herewith.
In audi special declarations the generally acknowledged principles of inteniatjonal
law, as well as the known views of the belligerent powers on certain points, have Ih^imi
taken into consideration, in order, as much as possible, to obviate any complaints of
infringement of neutrality.
There does not exist, however, a law of this kind applicable to all ftitiire occasions,
and more particularly there are no general laws in Austria prohibiting the coustrnr-
tion, equipment, or manning of shi|)s (in Austrain harbors) which are destiucil foi
belligerent lowers, or are suspected of being so.*
There is nothing, therefore, to prevent the equipping or arming of
ships for a belligerent by the laws of Austria.
In like manner it appears, from the note furnished to Her Majesty's
representative at Berlin, that no law exists in Prussia ino-
hibiting the building or sale of ships.^
The Swiss law on the subject of neutrality has been introduced in the
! .w ofswit United States argument in terms of laudation ; but as in the
nature of things it can have nothing to do with maritime
neutrality, I presume it has only brien brought forward out of compli-
ment to our Swiss colleague, and I need say nothing further on the sub
ject.
I pass on to maritime nations. And first, as to France. It iscerUiu
that there is no prohibition in the French codes against the
i..«o jran.e. building or equipping of ships for a belligerent. The only
jjrovision relative to a breach of neutrality by a French subject is to be
found in the eighty-fourth and eighty-fitth articles of the code ^ml
which are in these terms :
Aht. R4. Quiconquo aura, par des actions hostiles non-approuv<5es par le gouvcrn*'-
nu'ut, expos6 I'dtat j\ uno d«^claratiou de guerre, sera jmni du bannisscment ; et, si l-i
guerre s'en est suivie, de la deportatiim.
Airr. 85. Quiconque aura-par des actes non approuvds par le gouvernemeut,expes<'
des Franvais a eprouver des represailles sera puni du banuissement.
^Report of neutrality laws commission, p. 39, British appendix, vol. iii.
'^ Ibid., p. 65.
OPINIONS OF SIR ALEXANDER COCKBURN. 279
On tliese articles M. Treitt, the learned counsel to the British erab.issy,
Makes the following observations :
Vona A'ondrez bien remarqiier la gji^n^ralit^ de cps ©xpros'iions, qniconqw^ actions kon-
tUcjt: le ]6;;islati>nr n'ns pim vonlnddtinirceqn'il faillait^ntendre par acUom hostilee ; il
et) a laias^ V appreciation souveraine attxjugea,
II lie 8*agit point dans les articles «4 et 85 dii code pdnal des macliinations et ina-
nii'uvres an profit d'nno puissance 6tranpr^^o, et ayaut pour objct de provoqner des hos-
tilitds. Ces machinations pratiqnds dans uno intention et un bnt crirainels rentronr
linns les diffdreutes especes de trabison, lesquelles sent puuies par les articles 76 k i^'-i
dn memo code. Les articles 84 ot 85 s'appliqaeut aux simples cas d'imprudence, de
t*^nu^rit<5, de u6«ijlif5ence; c'est moins I'inteution que le fait materiel qui est puni. La
loi ue voit que le resuUat ; ainsi : " La France a-t-elle 6t6 cxposoe a une d<^claration de
Kuerre, la gnerre a-t-ellectd declare f Les Fran? ais ont-ils et6 expo8<^8 k de repri^sailles ? ''
Ces sealea questions r^solues atUrmativoment entraiueront Tapplication d'une des
peioea si s^veres pronoac^es par la loi, et ea outre le paiemeut de dommages-iutdrets
qui peuveiit toujour 6tro rdclam^.
II faut done trois conditions pourquHl y ait lieu k Tapplication des articles 84 et 85
du code pdnal :
1. Que Taction soit hostile.
2. Que Taction n^ait pas 6t6 appronv^e par le ^onvernement.
3. Que la France a etd exposee a uue declaration de guerre ou des Fran^ais expost^'s
a des repr^sailles.
Je precise ces trois circon stances parceque c^est le pouvoir judiciaire senl qui est
appeM k les rdsoudre et k decider de la cuipabilit<^.
Bi les juges decident que telle actiou u'est point une action hostile, et par cons^(|nent
non-violatrice de la neutrality?, le gouverneraent devra respecter cette decision et pourra
iopposer an bellig^rant qui se pljiindrait.
Sidevant les juges Taccus^? excipait d'une approbation, soit tacite, soit expresse par
le gonvernoment, Taction incrimiude ne pourrait plus etre punie.
Eutin, si Taction hostile u'avait ptis pour consequence des reprdsailles onune<5ventu-
alit<5 de guerre, elle cesse d'etre criuiinelle.^
Writing to Mr. Fane, then British minister at Paris, M. de Moustier,
the minister for foregn affairs, says :
A proprement parler, il li'y a pas de disposition dans la legislation francaise qui
marque d'une man i5re precise les limites de la neutrality a observer entr« deux puis-
jyincert etrangJires qui sobt en ^.tat de guerre, les questions de cette nature <?tant <Tun
earaet^re inixte, et trouvaut leur solution dans les principes gdn^raux du droit inter-
national."^
It is clear, therefore, that the Frenc'h law went no further than to pro-
vide for the punishment of an^unfraction of international law which has
the effect of exposing France to a declaration of war or to reprisals.
Now, as we have seen, the sale even of armed ships is not an offense
a<^ainst neutrality and could not produce the consequences referred to in
the articles of tlie code. It is true the government has the power of
preventing the arming of vessels in its own hands, if it thinks proper to
use it, as the exportation of arms, except with the permission of the
f(overnnient, is prohibited under heavy penalties — not, indeed, with the
motive of preventing breaches of neutrality, but from motives of policy
of a very different character. If, indeed, the construction of an armeJl
vessel formed part of an enterprise having for its immediate object hoc-
tile operations against a belligerent power, then, as L have already
pointed out, the whole would amount to a violation of neutrality.
But an imperial decree of the 10th June, 1861, pa.ssed with a view to
the war which had then broken out, contained in its 3d article the fol-
lowing provision :
II est interdit k tout Froncais de prendre commission de Tune des deux parties pour
armerde^ vaisseaux en guerre, ou d'accepter des lettres de marque pour faire la course
iitaritime, wi de concourir d'une maniere queleonque a T^quipem ut ou^ Tarmement
d'un navire de guerre ou corsaire de Tune des deux parties belligdrantes.'
^ Report of Neutrality Laws Commission ^ p. 45, British Appendix, vol. iii.
2 Ibid, p. 46.
^Britisb Appendix, vol. iii, p. 22,
280 ARBITRATION AT GENEVA.
Thus, the law of France, in respect of the equipping and arming of
ships of war, was phicecl on the same footing as that of Great Britaiu
and America.
Belgiaui, which, as it is J^nown, has adopted the French codes, has like-
wise the eighty-fourth and eighty-fifth articles of the Code
l)enal; but with the exception of severe laws against priva-
teering, or the reception of privateers, the prohibitive and preventive
power of the law depends on the articles in question.
The Netherlands, in like manner, havingalso adopted the French code,
Law of the Neth- havc thc cigh tyfourth and eighty-fifth articles; bat uo
erund». spcclul provislou as to equipping or arming of vessels iu the
way of trade existed prior to the year 1866, as appears from the express
statement of M. van Zuylen de Nyevelt, the Netherlands minister for
foreign affairs, in a letter to Mr. Ward, found in the appendix to the
British case.^
It is true that M. de Zuylen makes the following observation :
Quant anx moyeus coactifs dotit le gonvernemont ponrrait disposer pour emp^cher
des violations de sa neatralitd, les articles 84 et 85 du code p6ual peuvent aiissi diu!^
qnelcpies cas sorvir h ce but. Ceux, par exemple, qui tacheraient d'dquiper ou de vendrtr
des vaisseaux de guerre dans nos ports pour le compte des bellig(?rauts ponrraient ^tre
poursiiiviifs en vertu de ces articles ; les navin^ nlors seraieut saisis comme pi<>ce de
conviction et par Ih, m6me leur sortie serait euipt^chde.
But it is to be remarked that the foregoing observation as to the pos-
sible application of the eighty-fourth and eighty-fifth sections of the
penal code to the equipping or sale of ships is given only as a matter of
opinion ; no instance appears to have occurred in which the equipping
or sale of a vessel of war ha^s been held to be an offense within these
articles. It must obviously depend on whether what was done amounted
to a violation of international law attbrdinga just cause of war.
The regulations issued by the Dutch government in 1866 do not touch
the case of the equipment or sale of ships, but only the admission of
belligerent vessels into Dutch ports. It may be remarked, in passin*;,
that it is expressly provided by article 4 of the regulations that "ships
of war may remain an unlimited time in Dutch harbours and estuaries,
and may also provide themselves with an unlimited supply of coal."^
Spain has two provisions corresponding to the articles of the French
code, viz, article 148 of the codigo penal, and article 25S
i..or..... of a statute of 1822 :2
Art. t4R Whosoever shaU, without having been permitted to do so by competent
authority^ have provoked or given motive to a declaration of war against Spain on the
part of another power, or shall have exposed Spanish subjects to suffer vexations or
reprisals against their persons or properties, shall be punished with imprisonment;
and if such person be a i)ublic functionary, be shall be puuished with temporary reclu-
si on.
Art. 258. Whosoever shaU, without the knowle<lge, authority, or permission of the
government, have committed hostilities against any allied or neutral power, or shall
have exposed the State to suffer for that cause a declaration of war, or if such hostili-
ties shall have been the ground for reprisals against Spaniards, bo shall be con-
demned to give public satisfaction for such offense, and to reclusion or imprisonment
for a term of from two to six years, and shall pay a tine equal to one-quarter of the
amount of damages he shall have occasioned, without prejudice to any further punish-
ment which he may be liable to incur for the violence committed. If said hostilities
shall have brought on an immediate declaration of war, or if such declaration shall have
preceded the time of the trials, the offender shall be punished with transportation.
But there is no law which touches the equipping or arming of ships
of war for a belligerent. The decree relating to neutrality issued on the
^ Report of neutrality laws commission, p. 63, British appendix, vol. iii.
* Appendix to United States Counter Case, j). 1062.
OPINIONS OF SIR ALEXANDER COCKDURN. 281
occaJiion of the American civil war is set out in the British Appendix.^
It contains no prohibition relating to the equipping or arming of ships.
It is stated, indeed, in the United States argument^ that the codigo
penal, in article 151, forbids the expediting of '* cruisers." Is it possible
tliat the writers are ignorant that the term ^^destinare buques al corso^^
does not refer to cruisers but to privateers?
Portugal has a corresponding provision in the one hundred and forty-
ei«rhth article, the Empire of Brazil in the eighty-third arti- l,^ „f Ponugai
de, of the penal code of the respective countries. In the •"•*»""•-
Brazilian code the offense consists in '^committing, without the order or
the authorization of the government, hostile acts against the subjects of
another nation, so as to endanger peace or provoke reprisals."
In the report presented to His Majesty the Emperor of Brazil on these
laws by D. Silva Ferr^, set out in the later United States documents,^
there is the following very pertinent observation :
Thus, it remaiDB understood tbat if the fact in itself were not snch as to give just
reason for war, according to international right, it could never be reputed a crime even
were it not authorized by the government, and were it eventually followed by war.
Such a fact is not then a reason but a pretext for war.
In this elaborate report, in which the effect of the foregoing law is
fully discussed, 1 find no reference whatever to the equipment or arm-
ing of ships, as being within it.
The government of Brazil, like that of France, upon the breaking out
of the civil war, made special provision by law for the enforcing of neu-
tmlity. By a circular of the 1st of August, 18G1, the presidents of the
different provinces were instructed as follows : *
Tbe Confederate States have no recognized existence ; but, having constituted a dis-
tinct government defacto^ the imperial government cannot consider their naval ariuu-
iiifiit^s as acts of piracy, nor refuse them, with the necessary restrictions, the character
of l>e]iigerent-s, which they have assumed.
lu conformity with this, Brazilian subjects are to abstain from all participatiou and
:iid m favor of one of the belligerents, and they must not take part in any acts which can
li«* considered as hostile to one of the two parties, and contrary to the obligations of
tbe neutrality.
The exportation of warlike articles from the ports of the empire for the new Confed-
erate States IS absolutely prohibited, whether it is intended to be done under the Bra-
zilian flag or that of another nation.
The same trade in contraband of war must be forbidden to Brazilian ships, although
tlit'y may be destined for the jiorts subject to the Government of the North American
rjiion.
No ship with the flag of one of the belligerents, and which may be employed in this
war, or intended for it, can be provisioned, equipped, or armed in the ports of the em-
pire; the furnishing of victuals and naval provisions indispensuble for the continua-
tion (»f the voyage not being included in this prohibition.
Xo ship of war or privateer shall be allowed to enter and remain with prizes in our
ports or bays more than twenty-four houi-s, except in case of forced arrival, and they
shall in DO way be allowed to dispose of the said prizes, or of objects coming from
thum.
Thus, going far beyond other nations, Brazil prohibited not only the
sale of ships, but all trade in articles contraband of war even in its own
ports.
Serious disputes having arisen in the course of the ensuing year be-
tween the Governments of the United States and Brazil on the subjintt
of confedenite cruisers received in ports of the empire, the Govern-
ment, in order to prevent as far as possible the occasion of such trouble-
some remonstrances, published the still more stringent regulations con-
1 British Appendix, vol. iii, p. 24.
« Ibid., p. t«.
' Appendix to the United States Counter Case, Part IV, p. 988.
I.JW i<f It I It.
282 ARBITRATION AT GENEVA.
tained in the circular of the 23d of June, 1863, set out in the seventh vol-
ume of the iippendix of the Uniti^d States, re^^ulatious much more rigor-
ous than those which have been adopted by any other nation.^ But, as
these re;»:uhitions rehite entirely to the reception of belligerent vessels
in Brazilian ports, it is unnecessary to dwell upon them here.
Italy has in the one hundred and seventy -fourth and one hundred and
seventy-fifth articles of the penal code, provisions corn^-
sponding to those of the French code :^
Art. 174. If any person whosoever shaH, by acts not anthorized by the goveni-
iiient of the King, have exposed the state to a declaration of war, he shaU be puni^luMl
with baninhmeut; if the war has actually occurred, he shall be punished with tem-
porary penal servitude.
Akt. 175. If any person whosoever shall, by acts not approved of by the government
of the King, have exposed the subjects of the kingdom to reprisals, he shall be pmi-
inhed with banishment even for a term of ten years or with imprisonment, withntit
]U'ejndice to any further penalty t<^ which he may be liable on account of the acts he
has committed. If the oiieuder be a public functionary, he shall be punished with
banishment.
So stood the law at the time of the breaking out of the civil war
between the Northern and Southern State's of America. In the course
of it the King of Italy, in an ordinance of the 6tb of April, 18(>4, but, so
far as 1 have been able to discover, then for the first time, adopted the
regulations established three years before by the Emperor of the French.
By article IV, **no Italian subject shall take commission from either
belligerent [)ower to arm ships for war, or a<;cept letters of marque to
cruise, or assist in any way in fitting out, arming, or x)reparing for war
a vessel or privateer of the said belligerents."^
The naval code, which was published in ISGO, in the chapter relatiiijr
to the neutrality of the state toward foreign powers, (chap, vii,) has the
following provisions:^
In case of war between i>owerH toward which the state remains neutral, privatt*ei>
or vessels of war with prizes shall not be received into the harbors or roadsteaiU
except in cases of stress of weather.
They will have to leave as soon as the danj^er has ceased.
No ship of war or privateer belonging to a bt'Uigerent will be allowed to remain
longer than twenty-four hours in a port, harbor, or roadstead of the state, or in the
adjacent waters, even when alone, except in cast* of necessity, arising from bad weather,
of shipwreck, or of an absence of the means necessary to carry on the navigation with
safety.
In no case will they be permitted during their stay in the port, harbor, or roadstea«l
of the state to sell, exchange, or barter, or even give away any of the prizes (taken in
war.)
The ships of war of a friendly power, even when belligerent, are permitted to touch
or even to remain in any harbor, port, or roadstead of the state on condition that the
object of their mission be exclusivelv a scientific one.
In no case can a belligerent ship avail itself of an Italian port for the parpo8««ot
war, or of obtaining arms and munitions. It shall not be able under the pret-euseof
repairs to execute any alterations or other works designed to augment its warlike fonv.
Nothing shall be fnrniMlied to vessels of war or to belligerent privateers beyond arti-
cles of food and commodities, and the actual means of repair necessary to the sustenantv
of their crews and the safety of their navigation.
In the Crtse in which vessels of war, whether privateers or merchantraen of the two
belligerent nations, are both together in a port, harbor, or roadstead of the state, then^
shall be an interval of at least twenty-four hours between the successive departures o!
the vessels of one belligerent and those of the vessels of the other.
This interval can be increased according to the circumstances brought before tht*
maritime authorities of the place.
The capture of prizes as well as any other act of hostility between two belliger<*nt
ships witliin the territorial waters or the adjacent waters of the islands of the staK'
will constitute a violation of territory.
* United States Documents, vol. vii, p. 110; British Appendix, vol. iii, p. 24.
^ American MS., Part IV, p. 949.
^Report of Neutrality Laws Commission, p. G2, British Appendix, vol. iii.
OPINIONS OF SIR ALEXANDER COCKBURN. 283
In all these countries, at tbe time to which our attention has to be
ilirectetl, the question whether there had been a breach of the municipal
hiw by a subject, turned on whether there had been a breach of neu-
ti^ality, such as to expose the nation to war or reprisals. The equipping-
or arming of vessels for sale in the way of commerce does not come into
question at all. It is, therefore, manifest tiiat the municipal law, both
of Great Britain and the United States, was far more strinja^ent, thou^jh
the punishment under the foreign law in case of a breach of the law
was more severe, by reason of the greater gravity of the result, when a
nation becomes ex|)osed to war, or possibly actually involved in it.
I next turn to the law of the northern nations on the subject of neu-
trality.
The law of Demark relating to ships, with reference to neutrality,
is fully set out in the third volume of the British Ap-
,. . Law nr Denmark.
pendix.^
Denmark appears to be one of the very few countries that have gone
the length of prohibiting to the subject the carriage of articles contra-
band of war. But though unusuall3' strict in that respect, and minute
as to its regulations in many others, the law contains no prohibition of
the equipping or arming of ships of war for the purpose of sale.
The Swedish ordonnanceof April 8, 1854, while it expressly prohibits,
by the eighth section, the arming or equipping of vessels
for the purpose or privateeruig^ is wholly without any pro-
hibition against doing so with reference to ships armed or equipped for
a belligerent state.*
The only article in the Russian code relating to neutrality is the
two hundred and fifty ninth, which is as follows:^
If any Russian subject in time of peace shall by open force attack the inhabitants of
a uei^hborinjj state or those of any otiier forei^^n country, and shall tlu-roby subject
hih own country to the danger of a rupture with a friendly j)ower, or even to an attack
by such foreign subjects on the territory of Russia, for such a crime aj^ainst interna-
tional law, the offender and all those who participate voluntarily in Ids enterprise,
with a knowledge of its objects and illegality, shall be sentenced to lose all their civil
rigiitB, and be condemned to hard labos in a fortress for a term of eight to ten years.
With the exception of this article, says M. de VVestmann, in answer
to an ofticial inquiry from the British government,^ " La legislation
russe ne renferme pas de dispositions ayant pour but d'empecher sur
le t<5rritoire de la liussie I'accomplissement d'actes dont les puissances
bellig^rantes pourraient se plaindre comme d'une violation du priucipe
de neutralite."
There being thus ho law in Russia relating to ships of war, and, as I
have shown, none such in Prussia, I was surprised, after reference to the
etiicieut regulations of the Dutch government, followed afterward by an
assertion that by those regulations the construction of cruisers was pro-
hibited, (which it is not,) to see it stated that '* similar laws were to be
found in liussia and in Prussia," as to the latter of which it is added,
(iu a friendly spirit no doubt,) that it *' once had occasion to apply its
law^s to the acts of British agents."
But while the codes of so many maritime nations are silent as to the
equipping or arming of ships of war in the way of trade, the i,,„, „ to pr.x.,.
eoiles of si^veral — for example, Belgium, Denmark, Sweilen — *''*'*
])rohibit the fitting out of privateers. Jlere again the argument of the
United States falls into the same strange mistake as before. It rep-
* Report of Neutrality Laws Comudssion, p. 40, British Appendix, vol. iii.
2 1 bid., pp. 66,67.
3 Ibid., p. 65.
284 AEBITRATIOX AT GENEVA.
resents these governments as preventing not only the armament, but
also the construction of cruiset^s.^ I can hardly suppose the writer
ignorant of the meaning of the term corsaire^ the term used in the laws
in question, and which never has but one meaning, that of privateer^ or
in French phrase that of a ** vaisseaa SLTm6 en course par des particuliers,
mais avec Pautorisation du gouvernement."^ Neither of these countries
has any law against the construction of cruisers. Such a statement,
therefore, ought not to have been made.
The argument of the United States winds np the comparison of the
British law with that of other countries, with the following remarkable
observations :^
The institntioDS of Italy, Brazil, Switzerland, France, Spain, Portugal, the Nether-
lands, and all other governments of Europe, indeed, except Great Britain, expressly as-
sume, as to the institutions of the United States, that volunteer and unantborized
military and naval expeditions, nudertaken in a neutral country, are to be restrained,
because tending to involve such country in war with the country aggrieved. Infringt*-
uients of the law are punished mainly for that reason, including the protection of the
national sovereignty.
Hence, in all those countries, except Great Britain, the punitive law is a secondary
fact; the primary fact being the preventive action of the government.
The United States perfectly understood this, the true relation of things, and while
they indicted persons, and arrested ships, they did not, when occasion required action,
rely on such merely punitive, or at most auxiliary, means, but called into play the
armed forces of laud and sea to support the Executive in summary acts of prevention
by force for the maintenance not only of the sovereignty but of the neutrality of the
Government.
Neither Lord Russell, in his correspondence with Mr. Adams, nor the fraraers of the
British case, appear to have had any clear conception of these higher relations of the
subject, although distinctly and explicitly stated in the best works of interuational
law of Great Britain herself.
Great Britain alone pretends that punitive law is the measure of neutral duties; all
other governments, including the United States, prevent peril to the national peace
through means of prerogative force, lodged, by implied or express constitutional law,
in the hands of the Eexcutive.
A stranger misrepresentation could scarcely have been penned. The
assertion that the institutions of Gre4irt Britain do not assume that vol-
unteer and unauthorized military and mival expeditions, undertaken in
a neutral country, are to be restrained, is without the shadow of a founda-
tion. It is equally untrue and unjust to say that Great Britain pretends
that punitive law is the measure of neutral duties. Great Britiiin pre-
tends nothing: of the kind. The best answer to these unwarranted as-
sertions is the fact, that the Alabama was attempted to be seized ; that
the Alexandra was seized ; as were the Pampero and the Birkenhead
rams, and the Florida at Nassau ; by virtue of the preventive power
alone; and that, if in any of those cases resistance had been offered, or
force required, force would, as a matter of course, have been resorted
to immediately to enforce the law\
But while the United States thus impugn the efficacy of the British
law, and dwell upon the executive, as contradistinguished from leir*^!)
power possessed by their ow^n, and, as they allege, by foreign govern-
ments— of which, by the way, they offer no proof whatever — at another
time, with startling inconsistency, they assert that the governraeatof
Great Britain possesses this very executive power, and make the omis-
sion to put it in force the subject of vehement complaint.
The imagination of the writer must have been singularly lively, while
1 Argument of the United States, p. 72.
2 Littre, ad verb, ; and see Merlin, ** Repertoire," tit. " Prises maritimes."
3 Pages 71, 72.
OPINIONS OF SIR ALEXANDER COCKBURN. 285
his conscience must have slept, who could venture to put on paper the
following passages:^
No independent stftte exists, either iu Europe or Araericaf encnmbered with consti-
tutional incapacity iu this respect.
Violations of neutrality are issues of war and peace. Whatever power in a state
declares war, or makes peace, has jurisdiction of the issues uf peace and war, iuchiding
of course all violations of neutrality.
In pidut of fact, such authority is uot a quality of despotic government only: it be-
Inuj^ equally to the most constitutional government, as appears, for inHtunce, iu the
political institutions of constitutional ri>imblicsHku Switzorlaud and the United States,
and in constitutional monarchies, like Italy and Brazil.
The selection by the counsel of the United States of the countries of
the four other members of the tribunal was, I presume, accidental. But
let US go on :
The counsel of the United States submit these propositions as undeniable and ele-
mentary truths.
Vet the case and counter-caMC of the Ikitish government assume and persistently
argue that the sole instrument possessed by the British government to enforce the
performance of neutral obligations, at the time of the occurrences in question, was a
particular act of the British Parliament.
Every government in Europe or America, except Great Britain, asserts und exercises
authority to prevent it^ liege subjects (aud a /or/ton commorant aliens) from doing
acts which tend to involve it in a war with any other government.
But the British government maintains that the sovereign state of Great Britain and
Ireland, the imperial niisti ess of the Indies, the proudest iu fame, the richest in re-
sources, and (including her transmarine possessions) the most populous uf the great
states of Europe, does not possess constitutional power to prevent mercenary law-
breakers among her own subjects, or bands of desperate foreign rebels, commorant on
her soil, from dragging her into acts of flagrant vi(datiou of neutrality, and thus at-
fonling, or tending to aflbrd, just cause of war to other foreign states !
And such is the defense of Great Britain in answer to the reclamations of the United
States.
It would be difficult to find any other example of a great state defending itself
against charges of wrong by setting up the plea of its constitutional incompetency
and incapacity to discharge the most common»place duties of a sovereign state.
Great Britain is not iu that condition of cohstitutional disability which her minis-
ters pretend.
Wo find, on the most cursory observation of the constitution of Great Britain, that
the declaration of war, the conclusi(ni of peace, the conduct of foreign atiairs, that all
these things are in Great Britain elements of the prerogative of the Crown.
We cannot believe and do not conceile that in all these greater prerogative powers
there is not included the lesser one of prerenting unauthorized privat«} persons from
engaging in private war against a friendly foreign state, and thus committing Great
Britain to causes of public war on the part of such foreign state.
If the exercise of such power by the Crown involves derogation of the rights of pri-
vate persons which ministers fear to commit, thej' should obtain a proper act of Par-
liament, either for antecedt^nt general authorization or for subsequent protection, all
wliich is within the scope of the theoretic omnipotence of Parliament.
The BritiNh ministers do not scruple to suspend the privilegcjs of the writ of habeas
cor/)M«, whether with or without previous parliamentary authorization, and whether
in the United Kingdom, or in the colonies, on occasion of petty acts of rebellion or
revolt, that is, the case of domestic tear : a fortiori they should and may arrest and
I>reveut subjects or commorant foreigners engaged in the commission of acts of foreign
war to the prejudice of another government.
Is it possible to deny or to doubt that British ministers might as well do this as the
xninistei-s of Switzerland, Italy, Brazil, and the United States in like circumstances ?
Again Switzerland, Italy, Brazil, and the Unittnl States —
Has the Queen of the United Kiufrdom of Great Britain and Ireland less executive
power than the President of the United States ? And if she have less, could not the
deticient power Ije granted to her by act of Parliament, just »is readily as similar ex-
ecutive power, in this relation, has been granted to the President of the United States
by their Congress f
But there is no such de^ciency of power in the British ministers. Their own con-
duct in pertinent cases proves conclusively that they have the power, and can exercise
^ United States Argument, pp. 43-45.
286 ARBITRATION AT GENEVA.
it, when tli<\v ohooao, without affording occasion of any serions doubt or denial of the
constitutionality of their acts.
lio it rtiiu'inluTcd that tin* excuse of thi^ British government, for oniittii»g to detain
the; Alahunia and other confecU'vate cruiserH, was the tilleged want of power to act
outside of the foreign-eidistinent act.
And yet, subsequently to the escape of the Ahihania from the port of Liverpool, ou
occasion of the construction in the ]M)rt8 of Great Britain of certain other vessels for
the confedtMates, connnonly spok«'n of as the Laird rams, the British governnnMit
s*-ized them ujKin its own res])onsil)ility in virtue of the prerogative power of the
Crown, aud so prevented their d«*i»artnre to make war against the United States.
Sitting oil this tribunjil as in some sense the representative of Great
Jjiitain, I eaiinot. allow these statenients to ^o forth to the world with-
out j^ivinjr them the most positive and nnqualified contradiction. They
are wholly uncalh^d for, as being nnnecessary to determine the question
whether, in ]>articuhir instances, (ireat Britain had been wanting in
diligence. They are not only nnjnst, but in the highest degree iingen-
erons, (I use the mildest expression I can find,) ou an occasion when
(ireat 15ritain is holding out the hand of friendship and conciliation to
America, and though, perhaps, at a heavy sacrifice, is seeking t-o bury
all sense of past grievance by submitting the claims of the United States
to peacelul and friendly arbitration. But it is not only that these ob-
servations are ungenerous and unjust. There is in this extraordinary
series of i)ropositi(Uis the niost singular confusion of ideas, misrepre-
sentation of facts, and ignorance, both of law and history, which were
pcrha])s ever crowded into the same space, and for my part I cannot
help expressing my sense, not only of the gross injustice done to my
country, but also of the a Hi on t offered to this tribunal by such an at-
tempt to i)ractice on our supposed credulity or ignorance.
It is not triu^ that*' the case and counter case of the British govern-
ment assume and i)ersistently argue that the sole instrument ])ossessed
by the British government to enforce the performance of neutral obli-
gations, at the time of the oc< urrences in question, was a particular act
of tiie British Tarliament.'^
It is not true that the British government has ever "maintained that
Great Britain did not possess constitutional power to prevent merce-
nary subje(;ts or foreign rebels from dragging her into acts of flagrant
violation of neutrality.'^
It is not true that'll great state" is here "defending itself against
charges of wrong by setting u[) the plea of its constitutional incompe-
tency and incapacity to discharge the most common-place duties of a
sovereign state."
The transparent fallacy which runs through the whole of this
series of declamatory assertions consists in confounding infractions
of the municipal law^ with infractions of neutrality properly so
called. Though, by convention between the two governments, the
equipping of a ship without arming may have acquired, ex post
faclOj for the purpose of the present arbitration, the character of a vio
lation of neutrality, no agreement can change the substantive reality of
things belonging to the past. Now, at the time the occurrences took
place on which the present claims arise, to equip a ship in the way of
trade, though intended for the service of a belligerent, was not, as I
have alread^v^ shown, and as Mr. Adams himself, in all fairness, fnlly
admits an offense against international law, and therefore was not a vio-
lation of neutrality. While, therefore, in a case of actual violation of
neutrality, as by sending forth an armed ship, or a ship immediately
about to be armed, for the purpose of immediate warfare, the executive
power might, erj^ropriV) r ///org, interfere, and if necessary by force, to
prevent such a proceeding, the seizure of a vessel unarmed, and not iui-
OPINIONS OF SIR ALEXANDER COCKBURN. 287
mediately abont to go forth, and in respect of which, therefore, no breach
of neutrality had taken place, could only be done by virtue of the munici-
pal law as constituted by the act of Parliament. But if a seizure was to be
made under the act, it was necessary that proof should be forthcoming
to justify and uphold it. Tlierefore it was true that, as regarded the
equipping of ships, the powers of the executive were limited to cases iu
which proof of a breach of the act was forthcoming. Therefore it was
that, in the case of the Florida, the government, thinking there was not
siiffieient evidence of belligerent purpose, abstained from seizing, and
in that of the Alabama dela^xd the seizure for a time. Therefore it
was that, in the lat43r cases of the Alexandra and the rams, the govern-
ment, being advised that the evidence was sufficient, proceeded to seize.
Hence, in discussing the question whether it was at that period, and in
the then admitted state of international law, the duty of the government
to seize the vessels in question, it is necessary to refer to the foreign-en-
listment act to ascertain what were the powers of the government. The
distinction is a very obvious one, and one which persons must be, I
should think, willfully blind not to see.
The assertion, coming from the quarter from which it proceeds — the
government of a great republic, where all executive power, I should
have imagined, would be clearly detined by law and exercised in sub-
ordination to it — that the British government should have proceeded,
independently of and, if necessary, in detiance of the law, to seize ships
and arrest suhjectsas well as foreigners engaged, as it is termed, in acts
of foreign war to the prejudice of another government, surprises me, I
must say, not a little; but when, as the ground of such an assertion, I
am told that "British ministers do not scruple to suspend the privileges
of the writ of habeas corpua^ whether with or without previous parlia-
mentary authorization, whether in the United Kingdom or in the colo-
nies, on occasion of petty acts of rebellion or revolt ; that is, the case of
domestic vcar^^ I find myself lost in amazement, and seek in vain to
tliscover what can possibly be meant by so strange a statement. War,
whether it be domestic or foreign, is of course war; and, in regard to
those who are actually engaged in war, the law of war necessarily
supersedes the civil law and civil rights, and would per fte, suspend
the privileges of the hahea^corpuH act. But if it is meant that, even in
time of war, the executive could, as regards persons not taking part in
tlie war, or not coming within the operation of martial law, suspend the
habeatf-corp^is act without an act of Parliament, the assertion is equally
uufounded and surprising, whether looked at iu an historical or iu a
legal point of view.
But a discovery has been made bj' those who drew up the United
States argument which, I must say, appears to me, as an English law-
yer, surpassing strange. It is, that that which could not have been
done toward seizing vessels under the foreign enlistment act for want of
evidence necessary to support a seizure uiuler that act might have beeu
ilone with a high hand, by virtue of the prerogative of the Crown; in
support of which strange doctrine the following instances are given, in
which it is alleged that what was done was done by virtue of the pre-
rogative. Such are :
The Qneen'8 proclamation of neutrality of May 13, 1^61.
The regulations issued by the government ofller Majesty in rejrard to the reception
of crnisers and their prizes in ports of the empire, .June 1, 18()1, June 2, 1H<)5.
The executive orders to detain the Alabama at Quecustowu and Nassau, August 2,
1862.
Th« executive orders to detain the Florida at Nassau, August 2, 1862.
The executive orders to detain the rams at Liverpool, October 7, 186:3.
288 ARBITRATION AT GENEVA.
The debate aiul vote in Parliament justifying the det«ntiou of the rams by the gov-
ernment ''on their own responsibility," February 23, 1862.
The executive ortler that '*for the future no ship of war belonging to either of the
belligerent powers of North America shall be allowed to enter or to remain or to be
in any of Her Majesty's ports for the purpose of being dismantled or sold," Septem-
ber H, 1H64.
The final executive orders to retain the Shenandoah in port, " by force if necessary,"
and to " forcibly seize her upon the high seiis," September and October, 1865.^
In addition to which the final decision of the government with regard
to the Tuscaloosa is referred to, as also the opinion of the law officers,
advising the seizure of the Alabama at Liverpool, and the rejection, at
the instance of the law officers, of the clanse proposed to be inserted in
the neutrality act of 1870, for prohibiting the entry of vessels, equipped
in contravention of the act, into British ports.
While I quite see how likely statements of this sort are to produce an
effect on the minds of persons not familiar with the constitutional law
of Great Britain, I am at a loss to understand how counsel, familiar with
English law, can take upon themselves to make them.
The limits of the royal prerogative are ascertained and defined; they
certainly do not include a power to interfere with the liberty, property,
or industrial pursuitsof the subject, except where such power is expressly
conferred by law. In the instances given, with the exception of the
Quetn's proclamation, as to the effect of which I have already spoken,
and the regulations as to the admission of belligerent vessels to British
jiorts, and the accommodation there to be afforded to them, which are
undoubtedly matter of royal prerogative, and the order in respect of
the Shenandoah, which was, as will hereafter be seen, A most excep-
tional case, every instance enumerated was, though in one sense an act
of the executive, yet an act done by virtue of power conferred by the
foreign-enlistment act, and not by virtue of the prerogative. As an
English judge and lawyer, I affirm that, short of their going out as a
hostile expedition, in which case force might undoubtedly be used, these
vessels could not have been seized under the exercise of prerogative
power.
Throughout the statements of the CTnited States a comparison is drawn
Cm, nr.»on h^- bctween the conduct of the United States and that of Great
!.n!ir.mrii's:!!"'!^'«" Bdtain in reference to the maintenance of neutrality.
ne.itrAwVr'"'' °^ When the British government retorts with instances of
American default in this respect, the answer comes that it is Great
Britain, not the United States, that is now on its trial. And this is
perfectly true; but when the plaintiff' seeks to prejudice the defendant
in the eye of the judge and of the world, and at the same time to secnre
favor to himself by holding up his own conduct as righteous and immac-
ulate, whereby to make that of the defendant appear more black, it is
but fair that his pretensions should be submitted to the criticism to
which he justly exposes himself.
The argument of the United States asks at the hands of this tribimal
for a rigorous enforcement of the obligations of neutrality against Great
Britain, on the ground that, while the latter has been unmindful of its
duties as a neutral, the United States have maintained a consistent and
unvarying course in the most exemplary fulfilment of those duties. I
select one from many passages in which a comparison between the two
nations in this resx>ect is invidiously made :
QiialUi ah incepto talis adfincm. With consistency unwavering, and at wbat-ever haz-
ard of domestic or foreign inconvenience, even if it were friendly powers like France
and Great Britain with which we were thns brought into contention, the Unit^Ml
> United States Argument, pp. 324, 325.
OPINIONS OF SIR ALEXANDER COCKBURN. 289
States have steadily adhered to principles of international neutrality ; and we may
well, therefore, demand the observance of those piinciples, or reparation for their uon-
obeervance on the part of Great Britain.^
It becomes, therefore, perfectly legitimate to take — as is done in the
British counter-case — a retrospect of the history of American neutrality
80 vanntingly extolled in the papers before us. It cannot be fair or just
that a country in whose ports privateering against the commerce of
friendly nations has been openly carried on upon the largest scale, and
from whose shores armed expeditions and raids have, in so many in-
stances, gone forth, should seek to enlist the favor of this tribunal in
order to swell the damages against Great Britain, by holding itself up
as a model of neutral perfection. It is not so much for this purpose^
however, that I advert to the history of the past, as it is for that of
showing that there is no foundation for the assumed superiority of
American laws or institutions in respect of the fulfilment of neutral
obligations. The use of a reviejv of American history in this respect
will readily be seen.
America undoubtedly has the credit of being the first nation that, by
positive legislation, sought to restrain its subjects within LeguLtiononm.
the strict limits of neutrality. But those who make this
boast as against Great Britain should also remember that it was through
the acts of American citizens that such legislation first became neces-
sary. The large and just mind of the greatest of American statesmen
saw at once the reproach and the danger arising to his country from
her ports being used for the building and equipping of privateers by
American citizens, and for sending them out, manned with American
crews, commissioned by the French government, to make war on British
vessels, while the United States and Great Britain were at peace. For,
as I have already observed, this was the mischief against which the leg-
islation of 1794 was directed. •
At that time no complaint had arisen of ships of war being built for a
belligerent. The complaint, again and again made by the British minis-
ter, was of " the practice," as Mr. Jefferson calls it, " of commissioning,
equipping, and manning vessels in American ports, to cruise on any of
the belligerent parties.^'^ The Government of General Washington was
perfectly sincere in its desire to prevent American ports from being used
for this purpose ; and, had there always been Washingtons at the head
of affairs, the well-founded complaints of Spain and Portugal, in 1816
and 1817, might never have arisen. I say '^ well-founded complaints,"
for the few vessels built or equipped in Great Britain during the late
civil war bear but a small proportion to the organized and systematic
privateering which was carried on from American ports at the period I
am referring to.
I first take the case of Spain, as it appears in the corre- ^^^ i.,„i,ofs ain
spoudence set out in the third volume of the British Appendix. ^°"^'*'°^" ** '**'*'"
On the 2d of January, 1817, Don Luis de Onis, minister of Spain to
the United States, thus addresses Mr. Monroe, then Secretary of State :
Washington, January 2, 1817.
Sir : The mischiefs resaltiDg from the toleration of the armament of privateers in
the ports of this Union, and of oringing into them, with impnnity, the plunder made by
these privateers on the Spanish trade, for the purpose of distributing it among those
merchants who have no scruple in engaging in these piracies, have risen to such a
height, that I should be wanting in my duty if I omitted to call your attention again
to this very important subject.
^ United States Argument, p. 94.
* British Appendix, vol. v, p. 242.
19 B
290 ARBITRATION AT GENEVA.
It is notorions that, although the speculative system of fitting out privateers, and
putting them under a foreign flag, one disavowetl by all nations, for the purpose of
destroying the Spanish commerce, has been more or less pursued in all ports of the
Union*, it is more especially in those of New Orleans and Baltimore, where the greatest
violations of the respect due to a friendly nation, and, if I may say so, of that due to
themselves, have been committed ; whole squadrons of pirates having been fitted out
from thence, in violation of the solemn treaty existing between the two nations, and
bringing back to them the fruits of their piracies, without being yet checked in these
courses, either by the reclamations I have made, those of His Majesty's consuls, or the
decisive and Judicious orders issued by the President for that purpose.
After setting forth depredations done by three American privateers,
he continues :
The consul at New Orleans iuforms me that the pirate Mitchell, with the vessels un-
der his command, fitted out by different merchants at that port, of whom a Mr. Dupuy
is supposed to be the principal, has lately taken several Spanish prizes to GalvestoD,
and that from the proceeds of their sales he has remitted to the said deputies $105,000,
which he has deposited in the Bank of Louisiana, after deducting the shares of the
captain and crew, amounting, as is supposed, altogether to $200,000. The same consul
adds that two of the prizes, one from Campeaphy, and the other from Guatemala, were
burned, and their crews landed by that savage monster, near Boquilla de Piedras, that
they might be, as they actually were, put to death by his great friend, Villapioto, a
noted rebel ringlea<ler, who, being pursued by the King's troops, had retreated to the
seashore to mase his escape. Of ninety men composing these crews, only nine vere
saved.
The consul at Norfolk informs me of the arrival there of a privateer schooner from
Buenos Ayres, one of several fitted out at Baltimore, and wholly owned there ; that
from what he has been able to ascertain, among other vessels she plundered a Spanish
ship, laden with a cargo of cochineal, indigo, and specie, to the amount of more than
1200,000, and proceeded to Baltimore to divide the spoil among the concerned. Th«
said consul, in the discha^e of his duty and exercise of his rights, addressed an appli-
cation to the collector of toe customs, cop^ of which is annexed, and also of the answer
of the collector, by which yon will perceive that he declines this Just reclamation. I
could cite innumerable other cases, as well attested as those I have Just stated, but I
omit them, as their detail would fatigue yon, without tending to demonstrate more
effectually that they proceed from the non-observance by the officers of this Go vera-
ment of the President s proclamation, and of the treaty of limits and ua\igation between
the two governments.^
On the 16th of January Don Luis writes again :
I have Just received information from the King's consul at New Orleans of the cap-
ture, within sight of the Balize of that port, and at little more than musket-shot from the
land, of the Spanish schooner Hipolita, Captain Don Buenaventura March, by the pirate
Jupiter, under the Margarita flag. To enable you fully to Judge of the atrociousncvi
of this capture, manifestly in violation of the ten-itory of the United States, I have
the honor to inclose the declaration of the captain of the said schooner, made before
His Majesty's consul at the aforesaid port, by which it appears he was at anchor in tbr
Pass of the Mississippi, and with pratique from the Balize on board, when he wa>
boarded by the aforesaid pirate, and so inhumanly treated by him as to be left weltrr-
iug in his blood upon the deck.
It would be superfluous to aflect your sensibility by a detail of the multiplied injnri«-^
and outrages incessantly sustained by His Majesty's subjects in these ports; they haM*
already been admitted by the President in his message to Congress, recommending; th<
adoption of such measures as in their wisdom may appear best calculated to ropn*N>
them, thereby ofl'erin^ to the King, my master, a pledge that His ^celleucy admits thf
necessity of indemuitying them as far as possible. It is, however, with great regrtt
that I have to remark on the delay in carrying such urgent measures into execuii*»n.
and that the injuries complained of have not been preventetl by a due observance oi"
the laws of nations, and of the existing treaty, which, by the Constitution, has tl <
force of law in all the courts, in consequence of its ratilication by the President .I'Jil
the Senate.-
On the 10th of February Don Luis complains of five more privateers,
belonging to ports of the States, as having taken prizes, and being en-
gaged in cruising against Spanish ships.-
On the 2Cth of March he writes:
I have just been informed that there have entered at Norfolk two pirates, undf r tl;-
•British Appendix, vol. iii, p. UD.
• Ibid., vol. iii, p. 101.
OPINIONS OF SIE ALEXANDER COCKBURN. 291
fltt<; of Bueuos Ayres, the principal of which is called the Independencia del Sud, armed
with 16 gaus aud 150 men ; her captain is the well-known pirate called Commodore
Chaytor. The second is the schooner Romp, which, to enter into that port, has changed
ber name to that of Atrevida ; she has a crew of 70 men, and appeared to he commanded
by a person called Grinnolds. Both vessels were huilt and fitted ont at Baltimore, helong
to citizens of that place, and others in this republic, and their crews and captains are
of the same. Their entrance into Norfolk has been public, to revictual, and return to
their cruise against the subjects of the King, my master ; but their principal object is
to place in safety the fruits of their piracies, which must be of great importance, if we
attend to the information from Havana, which states that they have robbed a single
Spanish vessel, coming from Vera Cruz, of $90,000 ; and to the fact that, on the 2l8t of
the present month, they had deposited $60,000 in the Bank of Norfolk, had landed a
namber of packages of cochineal, and had declared that they had taken to the amount
of 1290,000. I am informed that the person called Commo<lore Cbaytor was about to
set ont for Baltimore, probably to settle accounts, and divide his robberies with the
persons interested in tne outfit. It is a circumstance worthy of remark, that these two
pirates sainted the fort at Norfolk, and that it returned the salute upon the same terms
at) woald have been done with a vessel of war of my sovereign, or of any other nation
acknowledged by all independent powers.^
At the same time, another vessel, the Orb, is made the subject of
equally strong complaint :
The pirate Orb, fitted ont at Baltimore, under the name of the Confess, and flag of
Boenos Ayres, commanded by Joseph Almeida, a Portuguese, and a citizen of this re-
public, has hiMl the audacity to return, and enter the said port, there to deposit a j^art
of his robberies. The piratical character of this vessel is as fully acknowledged, as it is
proved that she was armed and manned with people of this country, and of others in
the above-mentioned port, and that she had made different prizes in the neighborhood
of Cadiz and other ports; since there now is in the port of New York the Spanish
polacre, the Leon a, captured by her, whose cargo, consisting of $200,000, is concealed,
where it is not known ; and in the same port oi Baltimore uiere are deposited the pro-
ceeds of the Spanish brig Sereno and her cargo, captured by the same vessel. No evi-
dence can, in my Judgment, be offered which gives greater certainty to facts so notorious.
If by chance anything could be added thereto, it would be the acknowledgment of their
atrocities. Nevertheless, I have the mortification to say that neither this notoriety nor
the reclamations of His Majesty's consul at that port have as yet been sufficient to pro-
duce those steps which are required by humanity to secure the person of this notorious
pirate, to take the declarations of the crew, and to prevent their enjoying their plunder
to the prejudice of the lawful owners.*
One cannot help being struck with the similarity of the complaints
of the Spaniard with those of which we have lately heard so much.
The ships are "pirates;" the facts are "notorious;" "no further evidence
can be necessary."
In like manner we have Mr. Eush answering as though it had been
from Downing street:
I have had the honor to receive your two notes, dated the 26th of this month, stating
that you have beeu informed that two armed vessels which have been committing un-
antborized depredations upon the commerce of Spain have recently arrived at Norfolk,
anil that a third, liable to the same charge, has arrived at Baltimore, thus bringing
themselves within the reach of those laws against which, in the above and in other
ways, it is alleged they have oftended.
Conformably to the constant desire of this Government to vindicate the authority of
its laws and the faith of its treaties, I have lost no time in writing to the proper offi-
cers, both at Norfolk and Baltimore, in order that full inquiry may be made into the
allegations contained in your notes, and adequate redress and punishment enforced,
should a, appear that the laws have been infringed by any of the acts complained of.
I use the present occasion to acknowledge also the receipt of your note of the 14th
of this month, which you did me the honor to address to me, communicating information
that had reached you of other and like infractions of our laws within the port of Bal-
timore ; in relation to which I have to state that letters were also written to the proper
officers in that city, with a view to promote every fit measure of investigation and
redress. Should it prove necessary I will have the honor to address you more fully at
another time upon the subjects embraced in these several notes. In the mean time I
venture to assure myself, that in the readiness with which they have thus far beeu
attended to, you will perceive a spirit of just conciliation on the part of this goveru-
luent, as well as a prompt sensibility to the rights of your sovereign. *
* British Appendix, p. 105.
♦Ibid., vol. lii., p. 106.
292 ARBITRATION AT GENEVA.
Don Luis replies as Mr. Adams or Mr. Dudley might have done:
By your note of yesterday I am apprised that tbe President, on being informed, by
the notes to which you have replied, of the audacity with which the pirates armed in
this country introduce into it the fruits of their robberies, has been pleased to ^ve
suitable orders to the authorities at Norfolk and Baltimore, that having ascertained
the facts which I have brought to his knowledge, they should duly proceed accordin}^
to law against the violators of the laws of this republic. The district attorney for the
United States at Baltimore has replied to the King's consul there, that he has no evi-
dence upon which he can proceed against Captain Almeida; but if a witness shoald
offer, who will depose to the facts referred to, he will proceed to order an embargo to
be laid on his vessel. I am perfectly aware that good order, the personal security of
individuals, and the prevention of any violence being committed upon them, require
that suits should be instituted according to the rules of court; but when a crime is
notorious to all, and is doubted by none, when the tranquillity and security of the State,
the honor of the nation, and the respect that independent powers owe to each other, are
interested in putting a stop to crimes so enormous as those I have had the honor to
denounce to you, it appears to me that the magistrates are authorized to collects
summary body sjf information, to inquire whether the public opinion is doubtful, and
if there be ground to institute a suit. The collector of the customs cannot be ignorant
that the three vessels, which I have named to you, were built and fitted out at Balti-
more; that they were cleared at that custom-house as Americans; that their crews
were, at their departure, composed of citizens of this Union, as were their captains;
and that the effects which they have landed can only come from Spanish ooontries.
What stronger testimony', if more is wanted, than their own declaration, can be desired
to proceed against these pirates f
The ship's papers, the declarations of the crews, the log-book, are all testimony
which can throw light upon the truth or falsehood of the crime alleged, and make it
unnecessary to trouble them until it be ascertained that there is ground for proceeding
judicially against them.^
Next comes a complaint of the capture of a Spanish brig by the
pirate Almeidq, commanding tbe Orb or Congress, with depositions of
sailors of the captured vessel.=^
These letters, like those of Mr. Adams, are accompanied by others
from the local consuls, with copies of correspondence between tbose
functionaries and the collectors of the ports. Thus Don Antonio Villa-
lobos having called on Mr. Mallory, collector of jS'orfolk, to seize two
noted privateers, the Independencia del Sud and the Atrevida, siiyinjr
that these vessels had been "improving their equipment and considera-
bly augmenting tbeir crew," Mr. Mallory writes, as ]Mr. Edwards might
have done:
In reply I conceive it proper oulj to remark, that these vessels have not been un-
noticed by me, and that, in uiy conduct toward them, I shall endeavor, as I have done,
to observe that course which my official duties appear to me to have prescribed. In
pursuing which, that I may have the aid of every light to guide me which facts can
afford, and as the allegations thus made by you, in an official form, must be presamed
to be bottomed on positive facts, which have come to your knowledge, you will have
the goodness, I trust, to furnish me, with as little delay as possible, with the evidence
of their existence in your possession.^
The Spanish Dudley replies :
With regard to the evidence you require I will not hesitate to say that, as the faot^
I have stated are matter of public notoriety, known to everybody, and I had no reason
to suppose that you were ignorant of them, I did not deem it incumbent on me to M
any proof to the simple narration of them ; and I was confident that, by going on to
point out to you the stipulations and laws which are infringed in consequence of tbose
facts, you will think yourself authorized to interfere in the manner requested.
I will assert, sir, as a known fact, that the brig now called Independencia del Sad i^
the same vessel which was formerly known under the name of the Mammoth privateer,
belonging to Baltimore, armed and equipped in that port, from which she sailed nnder
the command of the same James Chaytor, who still commands her; that the very same
James Chaytor was necessarily then, and cannot have ceased since to Ite, a citizen of
the United States, is settled and has a family in Baltimore, whence his wife came down
a few days ago in the packet Walter Gray, and is now in this town on a visit to ber
husband ; that he has enlisted men in this port, many of whom are not so obscure as
__^__^__^^_^^ ^____ _ — - ■ . ■ II — """
1 British Appendix, p. 107.
9 Ibid., p. lOd.
« Ibid., p. 112.
OPINIONS OF SIR ALEXANDER COCKBURN. 293
Tjot to be generally known. I will mention, as an example, Mr. Yoiinf;, of Portsmouth,
wbo is DOW acting as first lieutenant on board the said brig. X will assert as a fact
that the Atrevida is the very schooner known before under the name of the Romp, the
same that underwent a trial for piracy before the Federal court in this Stat-e ; that her
present commander, Captain Grinnolds, is a native of one of the neighboring towns,
and very well known in this place ; and finally, that this vessel has been at one of the
wharves altering her copper, which I call an improvement in her equipment.
If these public facts, falling within the knowledge of every individual, require more
proof than the public notoriety of them, I must request to be informed as to the nature
uf that proof, and also whether ycm are not warranted to act upon just grounds of
htispicion without that positive evidence which is only necessary before a court of
iastice.*
The collector did not look upon the facts as sufficient to warrant any
action on his part.
The correspondence goes on in much the same strain. On the 19th of
September, Don Luis writes to Mr. J. Q. Adams :
A complaint having been laid before His Catholic Majesty's government by a part of
tlie crew of the Spanish polacca Santa Maria, captured on her passage from Havana to
Cadiz by the pirate called the Patriota Mexicano, commanded by Jos^ Guillermo Este-
fanoB, manned with citizens of these States, and covered by their flag, under which he
chased and brought to the said polacca, until, having ascertaine<l her capture, be
hoisted the insurgent flag, I have received the commands of the King my master to re-
([uest of the President, through your medium, the most decisive measures for putting an
end to the abuses practiced in the ports of this Union, by arming privateers to cruise
agaiDst the Spanish trade, thus prostituting the flag of the United States by these pre-
datory acts, and trampling under foot, with an unparalleled audacity, national rights
and the existing treaty between Spain and these States.
I therefore now renew those urgent reclamations which, on former occasions, I have
submitted tu the President, through your department, on this important point ; and I
trn»t that the numerous instances of these abuses and horrible depredations will induce
his excellency to adopt energetic measures to restrain these excesses, which so deeply
cnmpromit the neutrality of the United States in the eyes of all nations, and arp wholly
repu|riiant to the friendship and good understanding liappily subsisting between them
and His Catholic Majesty.
lu a letter of the 2d of November, he writes :
It is very disagreeable to me to have to repeat to you, sir, what, unfortunately, I have
Wn several times under the necessity of sumbitting to the President, through the
luediam of yonr predecessors, namely, that the act of Congress of the 3<l of March, 1817,
has in no wise lessened the abuses by which the laws are eva<led, and which render
entirely illusory the laudable purposes for which they were enacted. From the greater
part of the ports of these States there frequently sail a considerable number of vessels
vith the premeditated intention of attacking the Spanish commerce, which ca)*ry their
anuament concealed in the hold. It rarely happens that they can be arrested, inasmuch
aji the collectors of the customs say that thej' have not at their disposition the naval
force necessary to effect it ; on the other hand, armed vessels, under the flag of the in-
surgents, enter into the ports of the Union, and not only supply themselves with all
necessaries, but also considerably increase the means they already have of destroying
the trade of Spain, as has recently been the case at New York, whereby (the so-called)
privateers of His Majesty's revolted provinces, which are in reality nothing more than
pirates, manned by the scum of all countries, enjoy greater privileges than the vessels
of independent powers.'-
The same state of things continnes in 1818. On the 9th of June, Don
Luis de Ouis informs Mr. Adams :
At my passage through Baltimore, on my way to Philadelphia, it was represented to
me by His Catholic Majesty's consul for the State of Maryland that there were in that
port four pirates, or privateers, if you please so to call them, namely, the Independencia
del Snd, Captain Gnnnold; the Pnerredon, a ?ia« Maugore, Captain Barnes ; tlie Repub-
licano, Captain Chase ; and the schooner Alerta, Captain Chaytor. These pirates, de-
nominated privateers, or vessels of war, of the pretended government of Buenos Ayres,
have entered the port of Baltimore for the purpose of dividing the spoil resulting from
I heir depredations on Spanish commerce, and of refitting and arming to renew these
fxcesses on the high seas. It is a matter of universal notoriety at Baltimore that three
of the above-named vessels were fitted out there, and the fourth is a schooner captured
hy them from Spanish subjects ; it is no less so that their commanders and the greater
' British Appendix, vol. iii, p. 113.
-Ibid., p. 118.
294 ARBITRATION AT GENEVA.
part of the crews are American citizeus, and that there is scarcely a single individual
belonging to BnenosAyres to be found among them. * * . *
I am aware, sir, that you will tell me that the courts are open to the re^oguizance
of claims of this nature, and ready to apply the law to such cases as occur and are sup-
ported by suitable testimony ; but I am under the necessity of declaring to you that it
is in vain to seek such testimony, however clear it may be to everybody. I have
demonstrated, in the most pointed manner, to His Majesty's consul the propriety of
directing his attention to points of so much importance ; but he has proved to me that
a great portion of the commercial people of Baltimore beiug interested in the cases
which produce my present reclamations, no one is willing to come forward and offer
testimony against what is termed the general interest ; and thus the wise measures of
government are eluded, justice is paralyzed, and the suits procrastinated and deferred
from court to court, with a view to deprive His Miyesty's subjects of that justice which
they have an undoubted right to seek in the tribunals on all their claims.'
Having stated that tbe vessels, in addition to the object of " convey-
ing to the parties interested at Baltimore the proceeds of their spolia-
tions on the Spanish commerce, and, among others, that of the Philippine
Company's ship Triton, to the amount of $1,500,000, captured by tbe
pirate Independencia del Sud, and carried to Buenos Ayres to be sold
there, have a project in fitting out anew and of attacking some posses-
sions of the King, my master, on this continent, to which they may
more easily send their prizes ; that these same privateers have brought
in two Spanish prizes, which are at this moment in the port of Baltimore,
one of them a vessel belonging to the royal navy," he continues :
I, therefore, demand, in the name of the King, my master, the restoration of those
prizes, as having been made by American citizens, and vessels fitted out in this country,
m violation of the existing- treaty between the two powers, and that the sailing of the
said privateers be stopped, and they compelled to give security for the result of an ex-
pedition, of which, without knowing positively that they intend to execute it, I have
the strongest grounds for presuming they meau to do.-
The correspondence closes with a letter of Don Luis to ]Mr. Adams ot
the IGth of November, 1818, in which he thus writes :
Whatever may be the forecast, wisdom, and justice conspicuous in the laws of the
United States, it is universally notorious that a system of pillage and aggression has
been organized in several parts of the Union against the vessels and property of tlw
Spanish nation ; and it is equally so that all the legal suit^ hitherto instituted by U\^
Catholic Majesty^s consuls in the* courts of their respective districts for its prevention,
or the recovery of the property, when brought into this country, have been, and still
are, completely unavailing. The artifices and evasions by means of which the letter
of the law has on these occasions been constantly eluded, are sutficiently known, and
even the combination of interest* in peraons who are well known, among whom are
some holding public offices. With a view to afford you and the President more com-
plete demonstration of the abuses, aggressions, and piracies alluded to, I inclose you
correct lists, extracted from authentic documents deposited in the archives of this le-
gation, exhibiting the number of jirivateers or pirates fitted out in the United States
against Spain, and of the prizes brought by them into the ports of the Union, as well
ns of those sent to other ports, together with the result of the claims made by the
{Spanish consuls in the courts of this countrj*. Among them you will find the case of
two armed ships, the Horazio and Curiazo, built at New York, and detained by Hii
Majesty's consul there on the ground of their having on board thirty pieces of cannon
concealed, with tlieir carriages, and a crew of IGO men. On which occasion it was pre-
tended that it could not be proved tliat these guns were not an article of commerce,
and they finally put to sea without them, the extraordinary number of officers and
crew passing for passengers. The number of ])rivateers or pirates fitted out and pro-
tected in the ports of this republic, as well as of the Spanish prizes made by them,
*ar exceefls that contained in tlie within list, but I only lay before your Government
those of which I have certain and satisfactory proofs. The right of Spain to an ade-
quate indemnity for all the spoliations dommitted by these privateers or pirates on tb**
Crown and subjects of His Catholic Majesty is undeniable; but I now submit it to your
Oovernnient only to ])oiiit out the extreme necessity of putting an end to these con-
tinued acts of hostility an<l depredation, and of cutting short these enormous and Jla-
grant abuses and evils, by the adoption of such efiectual precautions and remedies aj*
will put it out of the power of cii})idity or ingenuity to defeat or elude them.^
' Hritish Appendix, vol. iii, p. 1*23.
' Ibid., p. 1*24.'
• Ibid., p. Kil.
OPINIONS OF SIR ALEXANDER COCKBURN. 295
The letter is accompanied by a list of thirty privateers belonging to
the ports of New Orleans, Charleston, Philadelphia, Baltimore, and
New York, with a formidable list of prizes made by them.
During this time similar complaints had been constantly addressed to
the United States Government, on* behalf of that of Porta- r.mphint!.orpor.
gal, by the minister of the latter power, the Chevalier Coi*^ *"*^'
rea de Serra. Portugal being at that time involved in war ^with the
Artigas government, privateers were in like manner fitted out aud
manned by American citizens against the commerce of Portugal.
On the 8th of March, 1818, the Portugese minister writes to Mr. Adams
that he is ordered to lay before the eyes of the United States Government
the case of three Portugese ships, (of which he gives the details,) " cap-
tured by privateers fitted in the United States, manned by American
crews, and commanded by American captains, though under iusurgent
colors.'^ He incloses an extract from the documents proving these facts,
and offers to place the documents themselves at the disposal of Mr.
Adams.^
Mr. Adams, setting, as it were, an examx)le to future British foreign
secretaries, answers : '
The Government of the United States Inivin^ used all tbe means in its power to pre-
vent the fitting out and arming of vessels in their ports to crnise against any nation
with whom they are at peace, and having faithfully carried into execution the laws
enacted to preserve inviolate the neutral and pacific obligations of this Union, cannot
consider it«elf bound to indemnify individual foreigners for losses by captures, over
which the United States have neither control nor jurisdiction. For such events no na-
tion can in principle, nor does in practice, hold itself responsible. A decisive reason
for this, if there were no other, is the inability to provide a tribunal before which the
facts can bo proved.
The documents to which you refer must, of course, be ex-parte statements, which in
Portngal or in Brazil, as well as in this country, could only serve as a foundation for
actions in diimages, or for the prosecution and trial of the persons supposed to have
committed the depredations and outrages alleged in them. Should the parties come
within the jurisdiction of the United States, there are courts of admiralty competent
to oAcertain the facts ui>on litigation between them, to punish the outrages which may
be duly proved, and to restore the property to its rightful owners, should it also be»
bronght within our jurisdiction and found upon judicial iufjuiry to have been taken
in the manner re{>resented by your letter. By the universal laws of nations the obli-
gations of the American Government extend no further.'
Again, on the loth of October, the Chevalier de Serra writes :
Washington, October 15, 1818.
SiK : This very moment I perceive the intelligence that a ship is fitting in the
Patiixent to cruise against the Portuguese commerce, and the ship so fitting is no other
than the Portuguese tine brig Soam Sejcto, taken some weeks before by the Baltimorcan
privateer Fortuna, sent into Beaufort, North Carolina, and the goods shipped for New
York and Baltimore where they are under reclamation. Captain Taylor left Baltimore
on Sunday to take charge of her, and the night before the last a great deal of stores
left Baltimore for this ship.
You know perfectly to what extent the supreme Executive can exert his ]»ower to
prevent such a breach of all moral and international law ; and I dare not doubt that
it will be exerted, persuaded as I am of the honorable feelings of this Government.
I am, &c.,
JOSEPH CORREA DE SERRA.
P. S. — There exist now in Baltimore many jiersons who arc able to identify the ship."^
The reply comes — that the vessel shall be seized ? Xo.
Wasiiingtox, October 23, 1S18.
Sir: I have had the honor of receiving. and have laid before the President of the
United States, your letter of the 15th instant. I am directed by him to inform you
' British Appendix, p. 149.
' British Appendix, vol. iii,p. !.'>'>, No. 6.
^ Ibid., No. 7.
296 ARBITRATION AT GENEVA.
that, if you will famish a list of the names of the persons chargeable with a viola-
tion of the laws of the United States,^ in fitting ont and annlns a vessel within the
United States for the purpose of crnising against the subjects of your sovereign, and
of the witnesses by whose testimony the charge can be substantiated, directions will be
given to the attorney of the United States for the district of Maryland to institute saits
against the persons complained of, in the proper court competent to their trial.
I pray you, &c.,
JOHN Q. ADAMS.I
Yet there can be no doubt that, during this time, the United Statejv
Government were honestly sincere in their desire to put down the
scandal occasioned by this wholesale system of privateering. Several
vessels were seized, of which some were actually condemned, othei*s^
released only on giving security ; but the practice continued, vessels
being enabled to elude all the vigilance and activity of the officials. As
late as the 23d of November, 1819, the Chevalier de Serra writes in a
disconsolate strain, representing the evil as increasing rather than
diminishing :
PiriLADELPHiA, Xovcmher 23, 1819.
Sir : I have the honor of submitting the following facts and considerations :
During more than two years I have been obliged by my dnty to oppose the system-
atic and organized depredations daily committed on the'^property of Portngaese sub-
jects by people living in the United States and with ships fitted in ports of the Union,
to the ruin of the commerce of Portugal. I do justice to, and am grateful for, the
proceedings of the Executive, in order to put a stop to these depredations, but the evil
is rather increasing, i can present to you, if required, a list of fifty Portuguese 8liii>s,
almost all richly laden, some of them Eastlndiamen, which have been taken by these
people during the period o( full peace. This is not the whole loss we have sustained,
this list comprehending only those captures of which I have received official com-
plaints. The victims have been many more, besides violations of territory by lauding-
and plundering ashore with shocking circumstances.
One city aloue on this coast hsis armed twentj^-six ships which prey on our vitals,
and a week ago three armed ships of this nature were in that port waiting for a favor-
able occasion of sailing for a cruise. Certainly, the people who commit these excesses
are not the United States, but nevertheless they live in the United States and employ
against us the resources which this situation allows them. It is impossible to view
them otherwise than a wide-extended and powerful tribe of infidels, worse still than
those of North Africa. The North Africans make prizes with leave of their govern-
ment acconling to their laws and after a declaration of war ; but these worse infidels
of whom I speak, make prizes from natioqs friendly to the Uuit«d States against the
will of the Government of the United States, and in spite of the laws of the United
States. They are more powerful than the African infidels, because the whole coast of
Barbary does not possess such a strength of privateers. They are numerous and widely
scattered, not only at sea for actiou, hni ashore likewise to keep their ground against
the obvious and plain sense of your laws, since most generally, wherever they have
been called to the law, they have found abettors who have helped them to invade the
laws by formalities.
I shall not tire you with the nuuierous instances of these facts, but it may be easily
conceived how I am heartily sick of receiving frecpient communications of Portuguese
property stolen, of delinquents inconceivably acquitted, letters from Portuguese mer-
chants deeply injured in their fortunes, and seeiuj^ me (as often has been the case) op-
pressed by prayers for bread from Portuguese sailors thrown penniless on the shores
after their ships had been captured.
The Executive having honorably exerted the powers with which your Constitution
invests him, and the evu he wished to stop being found too refractory, it would be mere
and fruitless importunity if I continued with individual complaints except by positive
orders. This Government is the only proper judge of what constitutional dispositions
or arrangements may be established for the enforcement of the laws, and he alone has
the means of obtaining them, which are constitutionally shut to any foreign min-
ister ; I trust in the wisdom and justice of this Government that he will find the proper
means of putting an end to this monstrous infidel conspiracy, so heterogeneous to
the very nature of the United States.
Before such convenient means are established, the efforts of a Portuguese minister
on this subject (the only one of importance at present between the two nations) are of
little profit to the interests of his sovereign. Relying confidentlv on the successful
efibrts of the Government to bring forth such a desirable order of things, I choose this
' British Appendix, vol. iii, p. 150, No. 8.
OPINIONS OF SIR ALEXANDER COCKBURN. 297
moment to pay a visit to Brazil, where I am authorized hy His Majesty to go. My age
and my private aflfairs do not allow much delay in making use of this permission, and
I intend toprofit by the first proper occasion that may offer. The arrangements for
my departure will reqaire my personal exertions, and it will not be consequently in
my power to make an early or long residence in Washington this winter. As soon as
I shall be able I will present myself there to pay my due obeisance to the President of
the United States, and my respects to you.
Accept, &c.,
JOSEPH CORREA DE SERRA.^
The United States Government took the very proper step of getting
an act passed prohibiting the entrance of privateers into certain ports
of the United States; but this does not appear to have had the effect
pf stopping the evil; privateering appears, if we may judge by the
continued complaints, to have gone on as before.
On the 8th of June, 1820, the Chevalier de Serra calls attention to a
ship, taken by one of the privateers, having been sold by judicial au-
thority '' iu Baltimore, under the hammer, to Captain Chase, a notori-
ous private^sman, standing under an indictment for piracy."
He adds :
It is to he immediately fitted as a privateer (and a formidahle one it wiU prove, hy
its size and strength, which are those of a eooil frigate) to cruise against the Portu-
guese Indiamen, and the command of it will he given, as it is assured, to the notorious
Captain Taylor.
1 have not the least donht that the supreme Executive of this nation has hoth the
power and the will of putting a stop to this hostile armament, particularly when, as
in this case, he has timely information which will he successively put under his eyes,
at the very stage of this inimical attem^it on the Portuguese commerce.^
Again, on the 16th of Julj^:
Wilmington, July 16, 1820.
Sir: I am ordered hy my sovereign to lay before this Government the names and
vahie of nineteen Portuguese ships and their cargoes, taken by private armed ships,
titted in the ports of the Union by citizens of these States. The values have been
ascertained by the proper courts of justice, and revised with all care and attention by
the royal board of commerce. In proportion as the value of the other ships stolen is iu
the same manner ascertained, their names, and the amount of losses, will be laid before
this Government.'
The value of the nineteen ships is stated at $616,158.
In this letter the chevalier proposes the appointment of commission-
ers to "confer and agree upon what reason and justice demand.'' Thd
proposal was declined.
The reply was :
The appointment of commissioners to coufer and agree with the ministers of Her
Most Faithful Majesty upon the subject to which your letter refers, would not be con-
8Htent with the Constitution of the United States nor with any practice usual among
civilized nations. The judicial power of the United States is, by their Constitution,
vested in their Supreme Court, and iu tribunals subordinate to the same. The judges
of these tribunals are amenable to their country by impeachment, and if any Portu-
ICaese subject has suifered wrong by any act of any citizen of the United States within
their jurisdiction, it is before these tribunals that the remedy is to be sought and ob-
tained. For any acts of citizens of the United States committed out of their jurisdic-
tioD and beyond their control, the Government of the United States is not responsible.^
The proposal was renewed in 1823, but again declined. The Govern-
ment h{\d done all it could do. ^^ Every attention, compatible with the
rights of citizens of the United States and with the laws of nations, had
been paid by the Government to the complaints of M. Gorrea of captures
made by privateers fitted out within the United States and partly manned
' British Appendix, vol. iii, p. 155.
2 Ibid., p. 156, Xo. 19.
3 Ibid., No. 20.
* Ibid., p. 57.
298 ARBITRATION AT GENEVA.
by their citizens." " The laws for secaring the faithful performance of^
the duties of neutrality had been revised and enforced ; decrees of resti-
tution had been pronounced by the judicial tribunals in all cases of Por-
tuguese captured vessels brought within the jurisdiction of the United
States ; and all the measuriBS within the competency of the Executive
had been taken by that department of the Government for repressing
the fitting out of privateers from United States ports, and the enlist-
ment of citizens in them.''
Mr. Adams adds, in a letter to the United States minister at Lisbon :
" These measures, however, do not appear to have been altogether sat-
isfactory to the Portuguese government, doubtless hecatise they are not
sufficiently understood by them.^^^ The Portuguese minister thought thatA
the short and simple process would have been to seize the ships, by vir-
tue of the executive power ; but the Mr. Adams of that day thought of
•' the rights of American citizens and the law of nations." .
The pleadings of the United States say little or nothing in answer to
the facts relating to Portugal. As to those relating to Spain, they say
in a somewhat offhand way, " What then I if we did injury to Spain
we repaired it."* The British Counter Case answers, that the reparation
consisted in setting off, in a subsequent treaty between the two nations,
some unascertained claims against the serious claims for actual losses
sustained by the Spanish commerce through the acts of American pri-
vateers.' I agree with the United Stiites that Spain having consented
to be satisfied with this reparation, nothing more is to be said on that
head. Nor do I think that matters which happened half a century ago
can with any fairness be brought forward to the prejudice of the United
States in answer to the present claim, not even though provocation
might have been given by the assertion of American superiority so os-
tentatiously obtruded in the pleadings of the United States. • But these
instances of infractions of maritime neutrality on so large a scale are
important for a very different purpose ; they show the diflBculty of re-
pressing offenses of this sort ; they show that the asserted superiority
of the American law is an empty boast ; and they entirely bear out my
view as to the alleged power of the President to make up for any defi-
ciency in the ordinary law as administered by the courts. In the long
series of complaints made by the representatives of Spain and Portugal
as to the thirty privateers, of the issuing of which from the ports of the
United States Don Luis de Ouis thus incessantly complains, or as to
the twenty-six which the Chevalier de Serra mournfuUj^ enumerates Jis
capturing Portuguese vessels, no instance, so far as I am aware, occurs
in which, when the Government officials alleged that the evidence was
insufticient, the President intervened, by virtue of the discretionary
power said to be vested in him to arrest a vessel.
Tbe temporary act passed by the American Congress in 1838, on the
An»ncan art of occasioH of thc Cauadiau insurrection, has been more than
*'^^ once referred to in the course of the present controversy.^
The circumstances under which that act was passed are stated in the
proclamation of President Van Buren, of the oth of January, 1838, in
which he said that information had '^ just been received that, notwitli-
standing the proclamation of the governors of the States of New York
and Vermont, exhorting their citizens to refrain from any unlawful acts
within the territory of the United States, and notwithstandingthepres-
^ British Apiiendix, vol. iii, p. 1(52.
5 Arpjument of the United »Statc.s, p. 83.
•' British Counter Case, p. 3.5.
••See Case of the United States, p. 134. Argument of the United States, p. S7.
OPINIONS OF SIB ALEXANDER COCKBURN. 299
•
eiice of the civil oflBcers of the United States, • • • arms
and niunitious of war and other supplies have been procured by the
(Canadian) insurgents in the United States; that a military force, con-
sisting in part, at least, of citizens of the United States, had been actu-
ally organized, had congregated at Navy Island, and were still in arms,
under the command of a citizen of the United States, and that they
were constantly receiving accessions and aid."
As Congress sits from January to March, the necessary law which the
circumstances called for might have been passed at once, but it was de-
layed till jMarch 10, 1838, and does not appear to have been approved
by the President until the 2()th of April ; even then, it seems either to
hare been inefficacious or feebly enforced, as on the 21st of November,
the President issued another proclamation :
Whereas there is too much reason to believe that citizens of the United States, in
disregard of the solemn warning heretofore given to them by the proclamation issued
by the Executive of the General Government, and by some of the governors of the States,
have combined to disturb the peace of a neighboring and friendly nation; and whereas
information has been given to me, derived from ofiicial and other sources, that many
citizens in different parts of the United States are associated or associating for the
same pnrpose ; and whereas disturbances have actually broken out anew in different
part^ of the two Canadas ; and whereas a hostile invasion has been made by citizens
of the United States, in conjunction with Canadians and others, who, after forcibly
seizing upon the property of their peaceful neighbors, for the purpose of effecting theiV
unlawful designs, are now in arms against the authorities of Canada, iu perfect disre-
gard of their owu obligations as American citizens, and of the obligations of the Gov-
ernment of their country to foreign nations.
It may here be remarked, in passing, that, while open assistance was
tbus aflForded from tlie United States to the Canadian insurgents, in
1838, during the whole period of the civil war, the confederates never
once succeeded in directing any hostile operations of importance from
Canada against the exposed American frontier ; and that in October,
1864, when a few adventurers made the attack on the bank at St. Al-
ban's, (a town near the Vermont boundary,) prompt measures were taken
to prevent an^' such attempt being renewed from the Canadian side,
and an act was passed by the Canadian Parliament when it met iu
Februarj-, 18G5, quite as stringent in its provisions as the act of Con-
gress of 1838.
Lfopez, a Spanish adventurer, had formed a plan in 1849 for an attack
on Cuba, with the object of annexing it to the United States, ftihh .rn of lo.
The idea of Cuban annexation was then in great favor with p'*««»'""<^»»»'»^
an important political party, who hoped to secure the entrance of a
slave-holding State into the Union, and thus counterbalance tlie grow-
ing power of the Northern or free States. Lopez accordingly met with
much popular sui)port.
On the 11th August, 1849, the President of the United Stfites issued
a proclamation stating that '• there was reason to believe that an armed
expedition was about to be fitted out in the United States, with an in-
tention to invade (he island of Cuba or some of the provinces of Mexi-
co," and that " the best info'rmafion which the Executive had been able
to obtain, pointed to the island of Cuba as the object of this expedi-
tion;" and calling upon "eveiy.ollicei; of this Government, civil or mili-
tary, to use all eiibrts iu his power to arrest, for trial and punishment,
every such offender against the laws providing for the performance of
our sacred obligations to friendly powers.*'
On the 7tli May, 1830, Lopez left New Orleans in a steamer with
about five hundred men, accompanied by two other vessels, and on the
17th landed at Cardenas, a small town on the northwest side of the
island, and occupied the town ; but trooi)s arriving shortly afterward
300 ARBITRATION AT GENEVA.
from Havana, lie was compelled to re-embark, and escaped to the United
States.^
It appears, from the appendix to the American Counter Case,* that
on the 25th of May orders were given for the arrest of Lopez ; but the
appendix is silent as to the result, which was that no delay being granted
by the district judge to procure evidence against him, he was discharged
amid the cheers of a large crowd.
The Spanish authorities liberated forty-two of Lopez's band, whom
they had taken prisoners, and they were taken back to the United
States in the United States ship Albany. A further attempt seems to
have been made to bring Lopez and his followers to justice, as on the
21st of July the grand jury at New Orleans found a true bill against
him and fifteen others for violating the act of 1818 ; but the American
Government failed in making out their case, and finally abandoned the
prosecution.^
On the 2oth of April, 1851, the President issued another proclama'
tion, stating that " there was reason to believe that a military expedi
tion was about to be fitted out in the United States, with intention to
invade the island of Cuba,'' and warning all persons of the penalties
they would incur by joining in it. The President concluded by "call-
ing upon every officer of this Government, civil and military, to use all
efibrts in his power, to arrest for trial and punishment every such offender
against the laws of the country."*
Nevertheless, in the following August, Lopez started on a fresh expe-
dition, of which the following details are taken from the President's mes-
sage to Congress of December 2, 1851 :
Lopez left New Orleans for Cuba on the 3d of August, in the steamer
Pampero with four hundred men, " with evident intentions to make war
upon the authorities of the island." The steamer left stealthily, and
without a clearance, and, after touching at Key West, proceeded to the
coast of Cuba. Lopez and his baud were soon overpowered by the
Spanish troops, and Lopez himself was publicly executed at Havana.
The President adds :
What gives a pecaliar criminality to this invanion of Cuba is, that under the le^d of
Spanish subjects, and with the aid of citizens of the United States, it had its origin,
w ith many, in motives of cupidity. Money was advanced by individuals, probably in
considerable amounts, to purchase Cuban bonds, as they have been callt^, issned by
Lopez, sold, doubtless, at a very large discount, and for the payment of which the
public lands and public property of Cuba, of wliatever kind, and the fiscal resources
of the people and government of that island, from whatever source to be derived, were
pledged, as well as the good faith of the government expected to be established. All
these means of paymentj it is evident, were only to be obtained by a process of blood-
shed, war, and revolution. None will deny that those who set on foot military expedi-
tions against foreign states by means like these are far more culpable than the igno-
rant and the necessitous whom they induce to go forth as the ostensible parties in the
proceeding. Those originators of the invasion of Cuba seem to have determined, with
coolness and system, upon an undertaking which] should disagree their country, violate
its laws, and put to hazard the lives of ill-informed and deluded men. You will con-
sider whether further legislation be necessary to prevent the perpetration of such
oflfenses in future.^
No such further legislation was, however, carried out ; though it was
not long before the need for it was again put to the test.
This time the scene of operations was on the Pacific coast, and the
1 British Appendix, vol. iii. Report of Neutrality Laws Commiisiony p. 34.
3 English text, p. 666; French text, p. 389.
^ British Appendix, vol. iii. Report of Neutrality Laws Commission, p. 34.
* Appendix to American Counter-Case, English text, p. 705 ; French text, p. 120.
^ British Appendix, vol. iii. Report of the Neutrality Commission, p. 31.
OPINIONS OF SIR ALEXANDER COCKBURN. 301
leader chosen to conduct it was the well-known Walker;
the plan being to gain possession of the Mexican posses- tio^ ni"n1t li^io
. . -r ^^ ^»jf • Bod Central America.
810DS m Lower Galitornia.
The attempt was made in October, 1853, by an expedition from San
Francisco. The invaders seized the town of La Paz, killed seven of its
defenders, and wounded others, and committed variotis excesses. They
were re-enforced by another expedition, which sailed in the Anita from
Sau Francisco, in December, but they were eventually driven out of the
country.
This expedition seems to have given rise to a new name, that of '^fili-
busters," which has since been used to designate those who engage in
outrages of thi&r description, having their origin in America.
Filibustering became a sort of profession ; and, under the name of
^^ transit'' and '^ emigration " companies, schemes were next openly
planned for attacking Central America.
Walker sailed for San Francisco on the 4tli of May, 1855, arrived at
Bealejo on the 15th of June, and assumed the title of president of Ni-
caragua, in which capacity he was recognized by the United States
representative. Having been surrounded at Bivas by the native forces
in May, 1857, through the mediation of the commander of the United
States ship of war Saint Mary's, he was allowed to surrender unmo-
lested, and to be conveyed away on board that vessel with the remnant
of his followers.
On returning to the United States he organized a fresh expedition,
this time at New Orleans. The attention of the authorities was called
to it, and a circular was issued on tlie 18th of September, 1857, which
states that '^ there is reason to believe that lawless persons are now en-
gaged within the limits of the United States, in settiug on foot and
, preparing the means for military expeditions, to be carried on against
the territories of Mexico, Nicaragua, and Costa Rica ;" after which it pro-
ceeds to call upon the district attorneys and marshals " to use all dtie
diligence^ and to avail" themselves *'of all legitimate means at" their
''command" to enforce the provisions of the act of 1818.
In October, Lord Napier, Her Majesty's minister at Washington, had
warned the American Secretary of State that two thousand men had
been enrolled, arms purchased, £250,000 subscribed, and that shipping
was being hired.
On the 10th of November, Walker was arrested and was held to bail
in $2,000 ; but on the very next day he embarked with three hundred
unarmed followers from New Orleans for Mobile Bay, where he was
joined by fresh recruits in another vessel, the Fashion, in which he
sailed for Nicaragua. Some of his band occupied Fort Castillo. He
was Jiimself, with the others, detained by the United States Commo-
dore Panlding in the San Juan Eiver and taken to Aspinwall, whence
he returned to the United States.^
The counsel of the United States have taken credit for their Govern-
ment for this proceeding on the part of the commodore. They say,
" when wrong-doers manifested obstinate persistence of wrong, the mil-
itary and naval officers of character and discretion, like General Scott,
Admiral Paulding, and General Meade, were employed to apply to such
persons the only method of prevention applicable to the case, namely,
force, to maintain the domestic order and foreign peace of the Govern-
ment."
As a matter of fact, however, the proceedings of the commodore were
at the time justly censured as having been in excess of his authority.
"■ ■ M r' _ ■ II I I II
^ Americau Counter Case, Appendix, p. 614.
302 ARBITRATION AT GENEVA.
The President, in his message to Congress of the 7th of January, 1858/
uses this language :
In capturing General Walker and his command after they had landed on the soil of
Nicaragua, Commodore Panlding has, in my opinion, committed a grave error. * * *
The error of this gallant officer consists in exceeding his instrnctions and landing his
sailors and marines in Nicaragua, whether with or without her consent, for the parpose
of making war upon any military force whatever which he might find in the eonntry,
no matter from whence they came. * • • Underthesecircumstances, when Marshal
Rynders presented himself at the State Department on the 29th ultimo with General
Walker in custody, the Secretary informed him ** that the Execntive Department of the
Government did not recognize General Walker as a prisoner ; that it had no directiohs
to give concerning him, and that it is only through the action of the judiciary that he
could be lawfully held in custody to answer any charges that might be brought against
him."
The protest of the Nicaraguan and Costa Eicau gorernments will be
found in the correspondence presented to Parliament respecting Central
America, together with a description by Lord Napier of the grievous
injury injfticted by the filibnsters upon those countries. General Cass
replied, on behalf of the United States Government —
That unlawful warlike enterprises have been carried on from the United States, com-
posed of persons from different countries, against the territory of Nicaragua, is not to
be denied. But during the whole progress of these illegal efforts the Government of
this country has faithfully performed the duty imposed upon it by the laws, as well
through public proclamations against such enterprises as by giving the necessary di-
rections te the proper officers to prevent their organization and departure, as by invok-
ing the action of the judicial tribunals, and also by the employment of its naval foroe.
He, at the same time, '^ denied that a fresh invasion was preparing.''
This was on the 25th of July. In October President Buchanan foand
it necessary to issue a proclamation, containing the following passages,
which show that General Cass' information was far from correct, or
that the Government officials, from whose reports he had gained it, mast
have been singularly blind to what was taking place :
Whereas information has reached me, from sources which I cannot disregard, that
certain persons, in violation of the neutrality laws of the United States^are making a
third attempt to set on foot a military expedition within their territory against Nica-
ragua, a foreign state, with which they are at peace. In order te raise monev for
equipping and maintaining this expedition, persons connected therewith, as I nave
reason to believe, have issued and sold bonds and other contracts pledging the pnblic
lands of Nicaragua and the transit route through its territory as a security for their
redemption and fulfillment.
The hostile design of this expedition is rendered manifest by the fact that these
bonds and contracts can be of no possible value to their holders unless the preseut
government of Nicaragua shall be overthrown by force.
The leaders of former illegal expeditions of the same character have openly expressed
their intention to renew hostilities against Nicaragua. One of them, who has already
been twice expelled from Nicaragua, has invited, through the public newspapers, Amer-
ican citizens to emigrate to that republic, and has designated Mobile as tne place of
rendezvous and departure, and San Juan del Norte as the port to which they are bonnd.
This person, who has announced his allegiance to the United States, and claims to be pres-
ident of Nicaragua, has given notice to the collector of the port of Mobile that two or
three hundred of these emigrants will be prepared to embark from that port about the
middle of November.
Two months afterward, in December, 1858, Walker's filibusters ac-
tually embarked at JMobile in the sailing-schooner Susan^ without a
clearance, on the pretense of being bound on a coasting voyage. Au
unsuccessful attempt was made by the revenue-cutter to stop them, but
was resisted, and the Susan was joined unmolested by the Fashion and
the Washington with military stores.
The expedition afterward broke down from the Susan being wrecked.
Walker and his band then proceeded, in March, 1859, to California,
whence they were said to have intended to make a descent on Punta
' American Counter Case, Appendix, p. 612.
OPINIONS OF SIR ALEXANDER COCKBURX. 303
Arenas ; but this attempt was not carried into execation, and Walker
returned to Louisiana.
In November, 1859, he, for the third time, ehided the Mobile author-
ities, and set sail once more from that port in his old vessel the Fashion.
The Fashion put back from want of stores, and some of the persons con-
cerned in the expedition were arrested; but there is no 'report of their
having been punished. He*^ started again in June, 1860, in the John A.
Taylor ; was met off Buatan by another vessel with arms, and effected
a landing on the Central American coast. His career was brought to
a close by his being shot at Truxillo in September, 1860.^
The British Counter Case gives a short account of the various Irish '
American societies which preceded the Fenian brotherhood
in the United States. F«nirtr«id..
This '^American institution," as the Fenians called it, declared itself to
he ^^ virtually at tcar^^ tcith England^ at a meeting held at Cincinnati in
January, 1865. Fenian bonds were issued, and soon afterward the fol-
lowing extraordinary spectacle was presented :
The head-center, as he was previously called, of the brotherhood was
styled president of the Irish Eepublic ; the executive council entitled
themselves ''senators'' with a president; a house was hired at a rental
of $1,200 ; secretaries of the treasury, of war, &c., were appointed ; and
the Irish Bepublic was declared to be founded at New York.^
Menaces of invading Canada were held out at numerous public meet-
ings, and were made good by a Fenian raid, on the 1st of June, 1866,
from Buffalo against Fort Colborne, in Cansbda. This was speedily re-
pulsed and sixty-five prisoners were taken, while the remainder of the
Fenians recrossed the river into the United States, where.they were ar-
rested to the number of three hundred and seventy-five by the Ameri-
can authorities, and their arms were taken from them. The subsequent
events are thus narrated in the British Counter Case, and the state-
ment has not been contradicted :
The stores of arms at Buffalo, Ogdensbnrgh, and Saint Albans were also seized by
the United States district marshals. On the 5th of Jnne, the arrest of the other Fenian
leaders was ordered ; and on the 6th the President issued a proclamation, stating that
it bad become kjiown to him that certain evil-disposed persons had begun to set on
foot, and had provided and prepared, and were still engaged in providing and prepar-
ing means for a military expedition and enterprise, which expedition and enterprise
was to be carried on from the territory and jurisdiction of the United States against
British territory ; and authorizing the United States military forces and militia to be
employed *' to arrest and prevent the setting on foot and carrying on the expedition
and enterprise aforesaid/'
On the same day on which this proclamation was signed, the Fenian prisoners at
Buffalo were released on their own recognizances ; and, on the 7th, O'Neill and two other
jirincipal leaders were also released on bail.
Another band of Fenians made a demonstration near Saint Albans^ but retreated im-
mediately on the appearance of a Canadian regiment.
Several arrests were made at Saint Albans and elsewhere ; and Roberts, the president
of the Fenian senate, and chief instigator of the raid, was taken into custody at New
York. His examination commenced on the 11th ; on the 12th he was released on pa-
role ; and the district attorney eventually abandoned the prosecution from want of
evidence, with the intention of preferring an indictment before the grand jury.
On the 23d July the House of Representatives of the United States passed the fol-
lowing resolutions :
"Resolredf That the House of Representatives respectfully request the President of the
United States to urge upon tlie Canadian authorities, and also the British government,
the release of the Fenian prisoners recently captured in Canada.
" Besolvedf That this House respectfully request the President to cause the prosecu-
^ British Appendix, vol. iii ; Report of Neutrality Commission, p. 35.
«Ibid., p. 41.
3Q<4 ARBITRATION AT GENEVA.
tions, instituted in the United States courts against the Fenians to be discontiDued, if
compatible with the public interests."
In pursuance of the second of these resolutions, the Attorney-General instructed tHe
district attorney at Buffalo to abandon the Fenian prosecutions there, and they were
abandoned accordingly.
The prosecution was also withdrawn in the cases of Sweeney, Spear, McMahon, and
the other leaders of the Vermont-frontier demonstration, who had been arrested, but
released on bonds of (5,000 after a day's detention ; and the intended indictment of
Roberts was dropped as a niatter of course.
In October the Government decided to return some of the arms which had been
taken from the Fenians.^
A bond was on this occasion taken from the editor of the ^' Buffalo
Fenian Volunteer" and another Fenian sympathizer, that the arms should
not be used in violation of the neutrality laws.
^e remainder of the arms taken at Buffalo and Ogdensburgh were
returned in the following year.
During 1867 the Fenians were occupied in promoting disturbances and
outrages in England and Ireland.
In 1868 they obtained from the United States governor the returir of
thirteen hundred muskets seized at Saint Albans. In November, 1868,
the Fenian leader O'Neill marched in review through Philadelphia, with
three regiments in Fenian uniform, numbering, as reported, three thou-
sand men.
Nothing, however, happened till 1870, when the second Fenian raid
upon Canada took place from Saint Albans and Malone. Kepulsed at
both places the Fenians sought refuge, as usual, across the frontier.
Several of the leaders were arrested and a quantity of arms taken
possession of by the United States authorities. Altogether thirteen tons
of arms are said to have been seized at the two raids, and conveyed to
United States arsenals ; besides these a field-piece and numbers of rifles
were abandoned on the scenes of action. On the 12th of July the trials
of the Malone raiders took place; two were condemned to two years'
imprisonment and a fine of $10, and one to one year's imprisonment and
a similar fine. On the 29th of July the Saint Albans raiders were tried :
O'Neill was sentenced to two years' imprisonment and a fine of 110;
another of the leaders to nine months' imprisonment and a fine of $o;
and another to six months' imprisonment and a fine of $1. The pro-
ceedings against two others were postponed. On the 12th of October.
O'Neill and his companions received an unconditional pardon from the
President.
On the day on which the pardon was granted the President published
a proclamation, warning evil-disposed persons that the law forbidding
hostile expeditions against friendly states would for the future be rigor
ously enforced :
AVhereaa divers evil-disposed persons Lave, at sundry times, within the territory or
jarisdiction of the United States begun, or set on foot, or provided, or prepared the
means for military expeditions, or enterprises to be carried on thence, against the ter-
ritories or dominions of powers with whom the United States are at peace, by organiz-
ing bodies, pretending to have powers of government over portions of the territories,
or dominions, of x>ower8 with whom the United States are at peace^ or by being, or
assuming to be, members of such bodies ; by levying or collecting money for the ])ur-
pose, or for the alleged purpose, of using the same in carrying on military enterprises
against such territories or dominions ; by enlisting or organizing armed forces to be
used against such powers, and by fitting out, equipping, and arming vessels to trans-
port such organized armed forces to be employed in hostilities against such powers.
And whereas it is alleged, and there is reason to apprehend, that such evil-disposed
persons have also, at sundry times, within the territory and Jurisdiction of the United
States, violated the law thereof bv accepting and exercising commissions to serve by
land or by sea against powers with whom the United States are at peace, by enlisting
1 British Counter Case, p. 4^.
OPINIONS OF SIR ALEXANDER COCKBURN. 305
themselves or other persons to carry on war against such powers ; by fitting out and
arming vessels with intent that the same shall be employed to crnis»^ orcommit hostili-
ties against snch powers, or by delivering commissions within the territory or juris-
diction of the United States for snch vessels, to the intent That they might bo employed
an aforesaid, &c.
On the otliof October last, less than a year after his i*elease, and after
this proclamation, O^Neill led a third raid against Canada on the Pem-
bina frontier, but was arrested by the United States troops, and this
time met with entire immunity, being discharged on the ground that
there was no evidence of his having committed any overt act within the
U^nited States territory.'
As stated in the British Counter Case, the proclamation of October,
1870, referred not only to the Fenians, but to expeditions in aid of the
existing Cuban insurrection, some of which are mentioned.
The correspondence between the Spanish minister at Washington
and the United States Government on the subject of
these expeditions against Cuba is, in parts, so appli- ..i:i\'"' '.!(', T. '.!-"!'
cable to the present question, that I cannot refrain from
quoting some passages.
Mr. Lopez Iloberts writes thus to ^Ir. Fish on the IStli of September,
1869 : 3
Certain malcontent Cnbans have established themselves in the United States, espe-
cially in Now York, and these are end«avoring, by every means in their power, not to
poiujuer their independence by their own efforts, but to gain at present the sympathies
i>f the American people, in order afterward to seek the aid of this Government for their
< anse. The history of what has taken place in the last few mouths is the clearest proof
of this. In a state of peace, it has bc/eu seen with astonishment that associations were
pid)Hcly organized in many ports belonging to a friendly nation, said associations
being composed of the agents of the insnrgents, with no other ohject than that of
(Urecting their attacks against Spain. Enlistments of men have also taken place dnring
whole weeks, as if the object were to form expeditions authorized by law, and conse-
quently with the consent of the authorities. These emissaries have carried their spirit
of iipeculation so far as to take advantage of the good faith of emigrants from Europe,
^ending them to fight in Cuba, under command of the so-called General Jordan, and
other officers, who fought on the side of the South in the civil war. Hostile demonstra-
tions have likewise been suffered to take place against a nation which, in 1S6L, had
not even allowed (in order not to wound the susceptibility of the United States) the
title of belligerents to be given to an insurgent population numbering 6,000,000 or
7.000,000 of whites, who occupied a third of the territory of the republic, and w^ere in
imsse^ssion of such resources that they were only conquered by prodigies of valor, mUi-
tary talent, and heroic perseverance ; and, after having seen the departnre of various
tilihuHtenug expeditions in broad daylight, and anmolested, from New York and other
FKleral ports, the minister of Spain finally found himself obliged, by the incomprehen-
fihle apathy of the authorities, to take the initiative in order to prevent these repeated
infractions of the neutrality laws.
To this Mr. Fish replies as follows, on the 13th October, 1869 : ^
This Government allows freedom of speech and of action to all, citizens or stran-
^<^rs, restricted only to the observance of the rights of others and of the public peace.
The Constitation of the United States secnres to the people the right peacefully to
iijisemble, and also to keep and bear arms ; it secnres them in their persons against
unreasonable search and seizure, and provides that no warrant shall issue but upon
probable canse, supported by oath or affirmation, and that no person shall be deprived
of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.
If certain malcontent Cnbans (subjects of Spain) have misconstrued and abused the
privileges thns accorded by a liberal Government, the undersigned need not remind
Mr. Roberts what the occurrences, daily reported from across the ocean, are showing,
that governments cannot always restrain their malcontent subjects or residents.
Laws wiU be broken at times ; and happy is that form of government that can con-
' British Counier Case, p. 45.
^ Papers relating ti) Cuban atfairs, presented to the House of Representatives, Feb-
rnary 21, 1870, p. 131.
^ Papers relating to Cuban affairs, p. 138.
20 B
306 ARBITRATION AT GENEVA.
trol the tendency of evil minds, and restrain, by its peaci*fiil agencies, the viok'iRj ut
evil passions.
The nndersigncd is forced to admit with regret, that an unlawful expedition did
succeed iu escaping from the United .States and landing on the shores of Cuba. It
escaped from the United States without having attracted anj* notice or suspicion on
the part of the Government, or its officers or agents, and, an the undersiguecl believes.
without any suspicion on the part of the agents of the .Spanish goverunieut. Previ-
ous to its departure, Mr. Roberts had been frequently informed that this Governiiieur
would act npon any information or suggestion which it could obtain through its own
agents, or that might be furnished by the Spanish authorities or their agents.
Oil the 17th of December, 1870, ^Iv. Koberts writes to Mr. Fish to
com])lain of the conduct of the United States authorities in permitting:
the departure from New York of the Hornet, a notorious vessel, which,
as wouUl appear from the British Counter Case,^ has since succeeded in
landing an expedition in Cuba. This vessel, formerly a dispatch-boar
in the United States Xavy, was sold, in June, 1809, by the Navy Depart-
ment to a certain Senor Macias. She was seized on her departure from
Philadelphia, but released, and proceeded to Halifax, where she was
again detained by the British authorities, but discharged, as no arms
were found on board. Leaving Halifax she sailed along the United
States coast, taking on board, at diiferent points, cannon, small-arms,
ammunition, and men, and put into Wilmington. Here she was again
seized, and a prosecution was instituted against some of the officers
and crew. These i)roceedings seem to have terminated inetiectively,
and the vessel was eventually released, upon bonds being given that
she would not be used in violation of the neutrality laws. From Wil
miugton she proceeded to New York, where she was once more seized,
and again released.
Mr. Koberts incloses in his note a letter addressed by the Spanish
consul at New Y'ork to the United States district attorney, iu which,
after recapitulating the above facts, the consul goes on :
I have now information on which I rely with perfect confidence, tliat this steamer,
in the hands of said Macias and his agents, is being fitted out at this port, X-o at ouf
fiail, to take on board at sea a military expedition from Nii^sau of gome two humlrrii
men and military oflicers, which will leave there in a vessel, and another military fx-
I>editi(m from Key West of some one hundred men, under command of one Cabalein):
after all of which, and taking on board at sea arms provided, one Cisueros (who witL
(General Jordan was joint commander of the Perit expedition from this city) will take
cliarjje of and condnct her to the coast of Cuba.
I roHpectfully submit that the ownership and history of this steamer, together ^ritb
the outfit on l)oard, and her preparations, easily ascertainable by this Government, it"
prompt movement be made, are sutlieient to call for the exercise of the ample prevent-
ive power of this Government against her departure. Trusting that, in a proper way.
I have complied with the disposition of this Government that 1 lay complaints of tlii>
character before, I hereby li*ave in your hands the responsibility of permitting tlii>
formidable instrument to proceed on her illegal expedition to the great injury of my
Government/^
What is the reply of the district attorney? Does he take the sus-
]>icious of the consul as facts until disproved, and proceed at once to
detain the vessel f ]S"ot so. He answers:
You accompany your letter with no proof or evidence that would authorize me to
seize the Hornet for the alleged intended breeches of our neutrality laws, or to take
any steps beyond those I have already taken. I have caused the must rigid scrutinv
to be exercised, to see that the Hornet has taken on board nothing of a nature to mil-
cate the hostile intentions you mention. I am advised that her intention is to cleAr
and sail in ballast for Nassau. What her intentions may be on reaching that {Kirt at**
things that remain nnproven, and in nowise indicated except by the intimatioos ot
your favor. I cannot legally act on mere surmise, but if furnished with proper evi-
dence I shall not hesitate to take anj' steps necessary to prevent violations of our law-?.
* I'age 4G6.
* Papers relating to Foreign Relations of the United States, presouted to Congre.o
December 4, l^^Tl, p. 781.
='Pai)er8 relating to Foreign Relations of the United States, 1871, pp. 781, 7.'^2.
OPINIONS OF SIR ALEXANDER COCKBURN. 307
The violation of the laws was not prevented. Mr. Roberts complains
that ** that same day the steamer Hornet put to sea from the port of
New York, without the judicial authorities of the Federal Goverument
hiiviuo: taken such measures to prevent her departure as should have
been dictated to them by the cireumstaiices and crimiual antecedents of
the aforesaid vessel.''
To this complaint of reliance upon the law for preventive measures,
instead of having recourse to pre rogat ire forcdj Mr. Fish thus replies:
The iinderaigned has the honor, in reply to this portion of tlie first note of Mr.
Lopez Roberts, to say that it appears from tLis correspondence that the Hornet, having
beeQ seized on the complaint of tbe Spanish consul only two months before the date
f)f the correspondence, and a hearing in which the Spanish consul took i^art having
resulted in the discharge of the vessel, no subsequent proof, or anything in the nature
of legal evidence other than a repetition of that which had already been ^lassed upon
'»>• the court, and been decitled to be insufficient fur the detention of the vessel, had
bren forwarded by the consul, or by any other Spanish othcial ; that, nevertheless, the
«ii<trict attorney ottered to again take steps to detain the Hornet, if proof were fur-
Li>hed which would warrant him in so doing, which proof was not furnished.
Tbe undersigned takes the liberty to call the attention of Mr. Lopez Roberts to the
I'at t that a district attorney of the United States is an officer whose duties are regu-
lated by law, and who, in the absence of executive warrant, has no right to detain the
Vf'vjels of American citizens without legal process, founded not npon surmises or upon
the antecedent character of a vessel, or upon the belief or conviction of a consul, but
ni>ou proof submitted according to the forms required by law.
Mr. Fish, therefore, though he had promised to refer the matter to
the Department of Justice, is of opinion that " the distri(*t attorney'
complied with his duty, and would not have been justified in taking
steps for the seizure of the vessel on the unsupported representations
of the consul, after the failure ot that officer to furnish the requisite
proof to authorize her continued detention.''^
After these details it can admit of no doubt that the history of the
Tnited states has been marked not only by systematic privateering
ugainst nations with whom the United States were at peace, but also
hy a series of hostile expeditions carried out in the most determined
manner by American citizens against the territories of neighboring and
Irieiidly nations.
The counsel of the Uuited States appear to have been aware of the
anomalous position in which their Goverument is placed by the con-
trast between the manifest failure on its own part to repress these
undertakings, and the strictness with which it now attempts to enforce
against Great Britain the duty of diligence to repress far less flagrant
breaches of neutrality directed against itself. A nijmber of documents
have accordingly been appended to the United States counter-case
showing (though in an imi)erfect and fragmentary manner) the various
instructions and proclamations which have been issued by the Presi-
dent and Government officials of the United States for the prevention
of these enterprises. These documents, however, omit to mention the
results, some of which I have thought it necessary to state. Neverthe-
less, they tend strongly to confirm the statements of fact contained in
the appendix to the report of the neutrality commissioners and those
made in the counter-case of the British government, and which have
hot been contradicted.
The story of all these expeditions as told in a great part in the por-
olamations of the difterent Presidents, is pretty much the same.* Some
scheme of annexation, or other form of invasion is started, public meet-
I Papers relating to Foreijpi Relatious of the ITnited States, p. 786.
'See President^ Proclamations of December 2, 1851, October 30, 1853, ami October
1'^ l-^Q. Hritish Counter Case, pp. 37, 39, 45.
308 ARBITRATION AT GENEVA.
ings of Rympathizers are beld, a reckless soldier of fortune is selected
for chief, funds are raised by bonds issued on the security of the public
lands of the country which it is proposed to conquer, arms are collected,
recruits advertised for under aome transparent verbal concealment of
the object, and at last a certain number of men are got together and
embark, or otherwise set forth. If the country against which the attack
is directed is feeble or unprepared, scenes of outrage and bloodshed
follow, until the marauders are driven to the coast, where they find
refuge on board American vessels, (in some cases it has been on board
ships of war,) and return to the protection of the United States to pre-
pare for a fresh attack. If the country is able vigorously to repel theoit
as in the case of the Fenian raids, they content themselves with a demon-
stration on the frontier, si^ek. at once asylum, are disarmed, and the
ringleaders are ^)erhaps tried. Those who are convicted are almost
certain of an immediate pardon. After an interval the arms are re-
stored, and unless the scheme has become so discredited by failure as to
be incapable of revival, preparations are forthwith recommenced for
another attempt, and everything goes on as before.
In the cases particularly mentioned in the British counter ease, viz,
the expeditions of Lopez, Walker, and the Fenian raids, it will be ob-
served that it cannot be said that the Government of the United States
had not full information of the projected enterprises, and ample time
for giving such instructions as might seem to be requisite for their pre-
vention. Indeed, it is maintained in the argument of the United States
counsel (p. 90) that '* the President of the United States acted in ad-
vance to enforce not diligence only, but active vigilance in all subordi-
nate officers of the Government.''
How successfully that vigilance and diligence was eluded may be gath-
ered from the facts which have just been stated.
In the face of such facts the following comparison between the United
States and Great Britain as to the observance of neutral obligations, to
the disparagement of the latter, seems, to say the least of it, somewhat
surprising :
As to the deportment of the Executive io the course of these occurrences, we confi-
dently appeal to the mass of official acts ami correspondence contained in the docu-
ments annexed to the American oouuter-case, to prove that the American Government
not only did everything which law required, but did everything which was hiiinanlj
poBsilde, hy preventive vigilance, as well as by punitive prosecution, to discharge tb«
neutral obligations of the Unite<l States.
Did the American Government, at any time, or. on any occasion, either willfally or
with culpable negligence, fail to discharge those obligations f We deny it ; althoagb,
in the midst of almost contiuual warfare, both in Euro[>e and America, it is possible
that violations of law may have occurre<l, in spite of all preventive efforts of that
Government.'
• * * • • •
«
During all this long period, the IJniled States steadily labored to prevent eqoipmoiit
of vessels in their ports to the prejudice of Spain. The successive Presidents of tbe
United States were positive in instruction to all subordinat<e officers, and vigilant in
observation, to enforce the execution of the laws of neutrality, international as well as
municipal. Prosecutions were instituted by the courts ; Vessels unlawfully captured
were restored, by Judicial or a<lministrative order; and the principles of neutrality
were proclaimed and maintained in every act, whether of tbe courts or of tbe Execu-
tive.'
• • * • » • *
"While England professes as her view of public law, that constitutional government*
must of necessity allow themselves to drift continually into war by reason of haviDg
no other means to keep peace except an act of Parliament, and that oonfeasedly insaffi-
oient, the United States, on the other hand, have as constantly Diaintained, and do now
> United States Argument, p. 82.
OPINIOXS OF SIR ALEXANDER COCKBURn! 309
maiiitaiu, that it is the duty of all governments, including especially conatitntioual
governments', to discharge their neutral duties in obedience to rules of right, inde-
pendent of and superior to all possible acts of Parliament. In consonance with which
doctrine it is that every President of the United States, from President Washington to
President Grant inclusive, has never failed to apply due diligence, voluntarily, nponte
sua, in the vigilant discharge of his own ofl^cial duty, not in mere complaisance to for-
eign suggestion, by himself or by other ofliuers of the Government, to prevent all un-
lawful enterprises of recruitment or equipment in the United States.^
Laws, no doubt, have been passed, and proclamations in abundance is-
sued. But, in spite of all this, privateering, armed incursions into
(M)iintries at peace with the United States, hostile raids, and filibuster-
iug expeditions have gone on as before. The practical result is that the
counsel of the United States cannot be permitted to prejudice the Brit-
ish nation and government before the tribunal and the world by an im-
aginary representation of the neutrality of the United States; and
some allowance should be made for Great Britain if, on a far more hum-
ble scale, something of the same sort should have happened on her
shores, seeing that with a law said to be perfect, and with the loftiest
seuse of neutral obligations, the Government of the United States have
not found it altogether possible to prevent their citizens from occasion-
ing trouble to neighboring nations, whether at war or at peace, and giv-
ing to other governments much cause of complaint and remonstrance
against their own.
The observation which thus legitimately arises is not got rid of by an
attack on the past maritime policy of Great Britain, or by a reference
to " the numerous piratical enterprises fitted out in former times against
the possessions of Spain in America, and the honor accorded to the
chiefs of those ex^peditions, such as Drake and Hawkins.''
ilowever offensive this telling sentence may have been intended to
he, though an Englishman, I readily forgive it for the sake of the
charming simplicity which has made its authors forgetful of the fact that,
at the time when Drake and Hawkins went forth on the enterprises they
terni " pirjitical,^ the ancestors of their countrymen and their own still
formed a part of the British nation. May not some of the old blood
which warmed the hearts and animated the courage of those bold ad-
venturers still flow in the veins of their transatlantic descendants, who
have made the name of '^filibuster'' detract somewhat from our idea
oi the perfect character of American neutrality 1
Having compared the law of the two nations in the matter of neu-
trality, I should, in the natural order of things, have now < „,j,,„„„ ^f „„
l»roceeded to the facts connected with the different vessels, ^^' •'"• "«-
\^ere it not for the unexpected course pursued by the representatives of
the United States in seeking to prejudge the question to which the in-
'iniry before this tribunal is directed, namely, whether the British gov-
ernment was wanting in due diligence in respect of the equipment of
certain specified ships, by imputing to the British nation an intentional
tlisregard of its duties as a neutral, and to the British government not
only a want of diligence in the discharge of its duty for the protection
of the United States against violations of neutrality, but a willful iiegli-
iwnce, arising out of an undue partiality and desire to favor the confed-
erates.
For tliis purpose the rei)reseQtative.s of the United States before this
tribunal have gone into the whole history of the time; and, not con-
tent with disparaging the institutions of Great Britain and reviling her
law, have sought to ca^t obloquy on her government, on statesmen
• Uuited States Argument, p. 70.
310 ARBITRATION AT GENEVA.
whom the British people have been in the habit of looking np to, ami,
indeed, on the British nation itself.
We are told of '* the early and long-continued unfriendliness of the
British government;'' that "Her Majesty's government was actuated
by a conscious unfriendly pui7)bse toward the United States." Again
and again we are told of the unfriendliness and insincere neutrality of
the British cabinet. " The cabinet were actuated by an imincere neu-
irality to hasten the issue of the Queen's proclamation." " The feelin*;
of personal unfriendliness toward the United States continued durinj^
a long portion or the whole of the time of the commission or omissiou
of the acts complained of." Finally, we are told that "the facts estab-
lished show an unfriendly feeling which might naturally lead to, and
would account for, a want of diligence bordering upon xciUful negli-
genceP
Earl Russell is made t!ie object of unworthy and unjustifiable attack.
He is represented as having '• evinced a consistent course of partiality
toward the insurgents." " When information as to the Florida was
conveyed to Her ^Injesty's principal secretary of state for foreign af-
fairs, he interposed no objection to her sailing from Liverpool." Surely
the writer must have known he was doing grievous injustice in makin;:
such a statement. The Florida sailed from Liverpool on the 25th of
March. As will appear when we come to the facts connected with
that vessel, Earl llussell had heard nothing about her for a month be-
fore. Again, *' when the overwhelming proof of the complicity of the
Alabama was laid before him, he delaved to act until it was too late,"
He wlio penned this must have known tliat the delay was not Lord
Eussell'S, and that, but for an unlucky delay, accidentally occurring'
elsewhere, so far as the action of his lordship in that aftair w^as con-
cerned, the Alabama would have been stopped.
Of the cabinet which has been thus assailed, three distinguished
members are no more. But he who, at the difficult time in question,
presided over the foreign relations of Great Britain, still lives amon^
us in the fullness of years and honor. There have, of course, been
many who, in the strife of party politics, have been opposed to Earl
Russell ; there have been others who have differed from him in particu-
lar inci<ients of his political conduct ; but never did it occur to political
enemy — personal enemy he never could have had — to question for a
moment the lofty sense of honor, the high and unimpeachable integrity,
the truthfulness, the straightforwardness, which have characterized the
whole of his long and illustrious career. When the history of Great
Britain during the nineteenth century shall be written, not only will
there be none among the statesmen who have adorned it whose name
will be associated with greater works in the onward path of political
progress than that of Earl Bussell, but there will be none to whom,
personally, an admiring posterity will look back with greater venera-
tion and respect. That this distinguished man should feel deeply ag:-
grieved by the unworthy attack thus made on the government of
which he was a leading member, and on himself personally, it is easy
to understand ; but there are attacks which recoil upon those who
make them, and of this nature are aspersions on the honesty and sin-
cerity of Earl Eussell.
Speaking of the officials in the colonies, the case of the United
States asks the tribunal to bear in mind what it calls '* these constant
demonstrations of partiality for the insurgents." ^' They show," it is
said, " a x)ersi8tent absence of real neutrality, which should throw sus-
OPINIONS OF SIR ALEXANDER COCKliURN. 311
picioD upon the acts of the British officials as to the vessels, aud should
iDcUne the tribunal to closely scrutinize their acts."
The British nation comes in, of course, for a share of the abuse thus
freely bestowed. British neutrality is described sometimes as '' partial
and insincere,'^ sometimes as " habitually insincere." "Great Britain
framed its rules, construed its laws and its instructions, and governed
its conduct in the interest of the insurgents."
1 have called this an " unexpected " course ; for, assuredly, neither
the British government nor the British people were prepared to expect
that, after Great Britain had not only expressed, openly and before the
world, her " regret " that vessels should have left her shores which after-
ward did damage to American commerce, but had voluntarily consented
to make good that damage, if it could be shown that any want of sufficient
care on the part of the British authorities had rendered the equipment
and evasion of those vessels possible — on an occasion when, in the
peaceful and amicable settlement of any claim the United States might
have against Great Britain, the remembrance of past grievances or past
resentments was to be forever buried, and the manj^ ties which should
bind these two great nations together drawn closer for the time to
come — ^ad vantage should be taken to revive with acrimonious bitterness
every angry recollection of the past, and, as it would seem, to pour forth
the pent-up venom of national and personal hate. Deploring the course
which has thus been taken as one calculated to mar the work of peace on
which we are engaged, I comfort myself with the conviction that a
^Teat nation, like the people of the IJuited States, seeing in the present
attitude of Great Britain a cordial and sincere desire of reconciliation
and enduring friendship, animated itself by a kindred spirit, will not
approve of the hostile and insulting tone thus offensively and unneces-
sarily adopted toward Great Britain, her statesmen, and her institutions,
throughout the whole course of the case and argument presented on
behalf of the United States.
In support of the alleged unfriendly feeling which the United States
ascribe to the British government, as the foundation of the vn . .i.v.i.,, .01
charge of partiality toward the insurgent States, where ""'"•> •♦^ "••
the government should have been neutral, they refer, in the first place,
to certain speeches made on different occasions by leading members of
the ministry. •
There can be no doubt that these speeches not only expressed the senti-
ments of the speakers, but may be taken to have been the exponents of
the sentiments generally entertained at the time. But it is a mistake
to suppose that those sentiments involved any unfriendliness toward
the United States. In truth, why should any such unfriendliness have
existed f The cherished sentiments of the British people on the subject
of slavery had strongly tended to alienate them from the South, and the
recent public discussion of the subject of slavery, on which the South
felt so sensitively, had produced feelings of by no means a friendly
character on the part of the latter toward Great Britain. The North
might, therefore, not unnaturally calculate on the sympathy of Great
Biitain, if not on its active support, in a conflict with the South. How
was it that what might thus have been expected a priori^ was not real-
ized to the extent of such expectation, and that where active sympathy,
or even actual support, might have boen looked for. Impartial neutrality
took its place ! The causes are not difficult to find. In the first place,
it appeafed to many that right and justice were on the side of the seced-
ing States. To such persons it seemed that when eleven great provinces,
with a population of several millions, forming fully one-fourth of the
312 ARBITRATION AT GENEVA.
Union, impelled by the conviction that the political views of the major
ity of the Federal States were, if not antagonistic to, at all events in-
consistent with, their interests, desired to separate themselves from the
Union, to which they were bound only by the tie of a voluntary con-
federation, an attempt to coerce them by the sword into a forced con-
tinuance in it, when it must henceforth be hateful to them, was
to make the issue one of might rather than of right. Others there
were, men of calm judgment and reflection, who, while they deplored
a disruption of the great American Union, yet thought that a reunion
effected by the subjugation of the South was not to be desired in
the true interest either of the victors or the vanquished ; that before
such a result could be brought about, a prolonged and fearful contest
must have taken phice, in which the best blood of the South would
have been shed, its resources exhausted, its prosperity destroyed for
years, its spirit humiliated and broken, making its restoration to the
Union of little value, except so far as the pride of the Federal States
might be concerned ; that, consequently, the Union having thus been
torn asunder, it would be better for both parties that each should be
left to work ont its own destiny, and develop its own resources, in the
vast regions to which its dominions might extend. Many, too, there
were who deplored this contest the more because they believed that,
despite the superior force and resourc<»s of the North, the subjugation
of the South was impossible, and that the prolongation of the contest
could only lead to useless sacrifices on either side. This view proved
erroneousin the result, but it was not the less honestly entertained. A
strong impression, too, could not fail to be produced on the public mind
by the energy, determination,. and courage displayed bj" the South, and
the generous ardor with which its population risked life and fortuae in
the desperate struggle for national independence, so resolutely main-
tained to the last against infinitely superior force. NVhatever the cause
in which they are exhibited, devotion and courage will ever command
respect ; and they did so in this instance. Men could not see, in the
united people of these vast provinces thus risking all in the cause of
nationality and independence, the common case of rebels, disturbing
peace and order on account of imaginary grievances, or actuated by the
desire of overthrowing a government in order to rise upon its ruins.
They gave credit to the statesmen and warriors of tho South; their
cause might be right or wrong ; for the higher motives ennoble political
action, and all the opprobrious terms which might be heaped upon the
cause in which he fell could not persuade the world that the earth
beneath which Stonewall Jackson rests does not cover the remains of
a patriot and a hero.
Public feeling in Great Britain, however, never went beyond this:
that both parties having appealed to arms, they should be dealt with
on terms of perfect equality, and that whatever was conceded to the one
should not be withheld from the other — to use a common expression, that
they should be left to fight it out fairly, without Great Britain throw-
ing her weight into either scale, as the Northern States seemed t-o think
she shouhl have done in their favor, not perhaps by actual assistance in
war, but by withholding from the confederates the character of belliger-
ents, and by treating their ships of w^ar as pirates and denying them
access in British ports. For the United States appear to have been
unable to understand the X)osition assumed by the British government
in making any concession whatever in favor of the insurgent States. It
appeared to them like an act of perfidy toward a friend. Had not polit-
ical and commercial relations bound Great Britain and the United
OPINIONS OF 8IR ALEXANDER COCKBURX. 313
States closely to<(ether for many years ? How then could Great Britain
take any step which should give any advantage to an enemy of the
United States f Two things were lost sight of in this reasoning : First,
that the insurgent States, with whom the United States were now wag-
ing war, had formed part of that Union with which Great Britain had
bad the intimate relations referred to — the second port in the Empire,
through which the cotton trade was carried on, having had all lis rela-
tions with the South; secondly, that Great Britain had the interests of
her own commerce to look after, which were seriously compromised in
the warfare as carried on by the United States. The blockade of the
Southern ports, established by the North with a view to the speedier
subjugation of the South, deemed by the North of such paramount
importance fis to render all consideration for the interest of Great Britain
unnecessary, was about to paralyze the industry of Lancashire and
bring famine and disaster on thousands. Great Britain accepted the
imsition and acknowledged the blockade. Was she not, in other respects,
to look after her own interests i It was natural enough that, in the first
heat and passionate excitement, the North should taTce the view it did
of the conduct of Great Britain. I cannot but think the time has come
when it might take a calmer and a juster view. It will do so hereafter,
in spite of those who still seek to rekindle the flame of discord, the
*ignesr which in their hands maybe truly said to be ''suppositoscineri
dolose.''
The chal'ge of partiality and of willful negligence having been thus
brought requires to be disposed of. For, though partiality does not
necessarily lead to want of diligence, yet it is apt to do so, and in a case
of doubt would turn the scale. Where a sinister motive exists, culpa,
which might otherwise be excused, becomes indeed dolo proxima and
inexcusable. Besides, sitting on this tribunal, as I have already said,
H8 in some sense the representative of Great Britain, while I may say,
with perfect truth, '* pudet htec opprobria nobis dici potuisse," I shouUl
not have fulfilled my duty if I didSiot see whether their refutation can-
not be found in the facts before us.
Independently of having i>ermitted the eiiuipment of ships, three main
heads of complaint are placed on record against the govern- r..,„pi„„f, of ,.,.
ment of Great Britain: 1. That it acknowledged the Con- ^•"•">'>"'"^
federate States as belligerent, and, as a cousecjuence, refusing to treat
their ships of war as pirates, admitted them to British ports on the
siime footing with the war-ships of the United States. 2. That it did
nothing to prevent the agents of the Confederate States from procuring
J^hips and supplies of arms and munitions of war from England. 3. That
it did nothing to stop the blockiule-runuing carried on through the
IJritish port of the Bahamas and Bermuda.
The contention of the United States that Great Britain was not war-
ranted in acknowledging the Confederate States as belliger- A.ku..^.l. tam-nt
ents might find its answer in the unanimous concurrence of "'^ ' *'"'"'^y
the great maritime powers in following her example. But, independently
of this, the course thus pursued may, Avithout ditficulty, be shown not
only to have been strictly warranted by international law, but also to
have been the only one which could w ith propriety have been adopted.
First, let us see how stood the facts at the time of the recognition of
the Confederate States as belligerents by the Queen's government.
Between the November of 1860 and April of 1861 seven Southern
States of the Union — South Carolina, Florida, Mississippi, Alabama,
ifCOTgia, Louisiana, and Texas — had not only renounced their allegiance
to the Federal Government and declared tliemselves independent, but
314 ARBITRATION AT GENEVA.
had formed themselves into a confederation, under the title of the
*^ Confederate States;" had adopted a federal constitution with all the
necessary elements of government; and had appointed a president.
They were in exclusive possession of the territory of these States, to the
total and absolute exclusion of the former Federal Government. They
had taken measures to raise an army, and had voted upward of
$2,000,000 for the creation of a navy. ' In April, 18G1, hostilities had
actually commenced. By the 13th of April Fort Sumter had fallen.
The arsenal at Harper's Ferry was seized a few days later. On the
15th the President of the United States called out the militia to the
number of 75,000 men.* On the 17th the president of the Confederate
States issued a proclamation inviting applications for letters of marqne
and reprisal, to be granted under the sefil of the Confederate States,
against ships and property of the United States and their citizens.^
On the 19th of April President Lincoln issued a further proclamation,
declaring the ports of the seven States blockaded;^ and on the 27th
issued 'a like proclamation with regard to the ports of North Carolina
and Virginia, which, in the mean time, had joined the confederation.
Here, then, were nine States, with a population of more than five
millions of people, exclusive of the negro population, (in other words,
one-fourth of the IJnited States, shortly afterward to be joined by two
other States,) which had established a de facto government, which ffov-
ornment had possession of the entire territory within the limits of those
States, and exercised all the powers and functions of government, with
an organized army prepared to wage war with the rest of the States for
the establishment of national independence, and which had actually
commenced hostilities by tlie capture of forts occupied by Federal forces.
No one could deny that this was in fact war, and war about to he con-
ducted on a great scale — a war to which the original Goverhment, the
authority of which was thus contested in arms, could not deny the char-
acter of war, with all the incidents which attach to it.
On the 4th of May, ISGl, (nine days before the date of Her Majestv-j*
proclamation of neutrality,) Mr. Seward himself wrote to Mr. Dayton, at
Paris :
Tho insnr^rents have iustitnted revolution with open, fliiixrant, deadly war, to compel
the United fcitatejj to arquiesco in the dismemberment of the Union. The United States
have accepted this civil war as an inevitable uece»sity.*
From the beginning the operations of tlie war were carried on asiiia
war between nations, according to the usages of war among civilized
states, yo attempt was made to treat insurgent prisoners as traitors
or rebels.
Under such circumstances, it is impossible to deny that a neutral
state had a right to accord to the insurgent government the character
of a belligerent. Whether it would be morally justified in doing so
must depend on the circumstances in which it found itself placed rela-
tively to the parties to the contest. All publicists are agreed thiit where
an integral portion of a nation separates itself from the parent state
and establishes, defacto^^ government of its own, excluding the former
government from all power and control, Jind thereupon a civil war en-
sues, a neutral nation is fully justified in recognizing the government rfe
facto as a belligerent, though it has not as yet acknowledged it as a
nation; and from the time of the acknowledgment of its belligerent
status the government de facto acquires, in relation to the nentml, ail
^British Appendix, vol. iii, p. *J.
'Ibid., p. 4.
•' Ibid., p. 7.
* United States Dociinieuts, vol. i, p. 35.
OPINIONS OF SIR ALEXANDER COCKBURN. 315
the rights which attach to the status of a belligerent of au established
Dationality.
** When," says Vattel, "a party is formed in a state which no longer
obeys the sovereign, and is of strength sufficient to make
head against him, or when, in a republie, the nation is di-
vided into two opposite factions, and both sides take arms, this is called
a civil war."^
Again :
When the tics of political association are broken, or at least suspended, between the
sovereign and his people, they may be considered as two distinct powers ; and since
each is independent of all foreign authority, no one has the right to judge between
them. Each of tbem may be right. It follows, in virtue of the voluntary law of na-;
tions, then, that the two parties may act as having e<iual right.-
Martens says :
Foreign nations cannot refuse to consider as lawful enemies tliose who are empow-
ered by their actual government, wbatcAvr that may b •. This is not recognition of
its legitimacy.
Ilantefeuille says on this subject : • mmuk-^.w.
En effet, les penples etrangers no peuvent intervenir entrc les belligerants; la qua-
lito de snjets revolt<?s, que l^une des deuxdouuearautre, doit (**tre dcartcepar eux; ils
ne sont. et ne peuvent Otre, juges de la justice on de Tiujustice de la giierre. Les na-
tions (jui dt^sirent rester neutres doivent accepter la possession de fait ; si elles veulent
etre respecti'es par les deux parties, elles doivent les reconnaitre et les respecter <5gale-
ment tons les denx. Le prince dtranger que refuserait de remplir les devoirs de la
ueiitralite euvers les insurg<^s ne saurait exiger d'eux d'etre regardd comme neutre ;
il serait :\ leurs yeux Tallie de leur ennemi, et ils le traiteraient comme tel avec
justice. D'un autre cOtd le souverain qui combat i)0ur ramener sous son obeissance
ses Hujets revoltes ne saurait s'offeuser (jue les neutres remplissent leurs devoirs envers
sen ennemia, puisqu'il ne pent exiger <ju'ils devieiinent ses allies, et que,h'ilsrefusaient
de reiuplir ces devoirs, ils seraient ertectivement ses allies, les ennemis de ses adver-
saires."^
Profcvssor Bluntschli, though writing adversely to Groat Britain on
the Alabama question, yet, as to the status of the confed-
erates as belligerents, has the lollowiug passages :**
Dn reste, le parti revolts qui opere avec des corps d*arm<?e militairement organises,
et qni entreprend de faire triompher par la guerre son programme politique, agit, alors
quil ne forme jmnt un etat tout au moius comme s'il en constituait un, au lieu et place
fl'ttn €tat, {an Staatea ftiatt.) 11 afHrme la justice de sa cause et la Mgitimiti^ de sa mis-
sion avec une bonne foi ejalc a celle qui «^' j>rfvM/Mt' de droit ehez tout etat hellifjerant. (Pages
405, 456. )
Again :
Pendant la guerre on sidmet, dans I'interet de rhumauite, cjue les deux pavtis ar/issm
de bonne foi pour la defence de leurs pretendus droita. (Page 45T^.)
And at pages 4G1, 4G2 :
Si Von tient compte de toutes ces considrrations, on arrive i\ la conclusion suivante :
Cent que, :\ considerer d'un point de vue impartial, tel ([u'll s'ofi'rait et s'imposait aux
^tats europeenSj en prf5sence de la situation que cr<?aient les faits, la lutte eugagt^e en-
tre rUnion et la confederation — cVst-si-dire, entrele nord et le sud — il dtait absolument
mpo&iible de ne pas admettre c^ue les I^tats-Unis fussent alors engag<5sdans i\negrand,)t
guerre ciriley oil les deux parties avaient le caractere de puissances politiquement et
militairement organisdes, se faisant Tune a I'autre la guerre, suivant le mode que le droit
des gens recounalt comme r<5gnlier, at anim<5es d'uue <^gale contiance dans leur bon
droit. Les uus pouvaient <5prouver plus de symi)athie pour TUnion, qui avait pour
eux tonto la superiority d'un <?tat reconnu et d'une autorit<?. constitutionelle, d'autres
pouvaient faire des v(eux pour le succes de la confederation, qui u*<^tait pas encore re-
conune comme dtat federal nouveau, mais qui esperait de se conqu<5rir une existence
propre. Tout le monde ^tait d'accord qiiil y acait guerre et que dans citte guerre il y avait
deux parties helligerantes.
^ " Droit des gens," liv. iii, 6 *49'2.
nbid.,liv.ii, $ 56.
^ " Droits et devoirs de nations neutres," vol. i, p. 231.
^'* Revue de droit international," 1^70, pp. 455,456, &c.
316 ARRITRATIOX AT GENEVA.
The i)riuciples by wbicb a neutral state slioald be governed as to tbe
circumstances under which, or the period at which, to acknowledge the
belligerent status of insurgents, have been nowhere more fully and ably,
or more fairly, stated than by Mr. Dana, in his edition of Wheatou, iu
a note to section 23 :
The occasion for tlio acconhi^ire of l>elli;;erent ri^^bts arises wlieii a civil couliict
exists within a forei«jn state*. The reason wiiich reqnires and can alone justify UiIh
step by the government of another country is that its own rights and interest* are so
far ali'ected as to require n definition of its own relations to the parties. Where a
parent government is seeking to subdue an insurrection by municipal force, and the
insurgents claim a political nationality and belligerent rights which the parent gov-
ernment does not concede, a recognition by a foreign state of full belligerent rights, if
not justified by necessity, is a gratuitous deraonptration of moral support to the rebel-
lion, and of censure upon the parent government. Hut the situation of a foreign state
with reference to the contests, and the condition of affairs between the contending
parties, may be such as to justify this act. It is important, therefore, to determine
what state of aft'airs, and what relations of the foreign stfite, justify the n cognition.
It is certain that the state of things l>etween the parent state and insurgents mn$t
amount, in fact, to a irar, in the sense of international law — that is, powers and rights
of war must be in actual exercise; otherwise the recognition is falsified, for the recog-
nition is of a fact. Tlie tests to det^'nuine the r]uestion are various, and far more
decisive where there is maritime war and commercial relations with foreigners.
Among the tests, are the existence of a de facto political organization of the insurgentit
sufficient in character, population, and resources to constitute it, if left to itself, a state
among the nations, reasonably capable of discharging tbe duties of a state ; the actual
employment of military forces on each side, acting in accordance with the rules and
customs of war, such as the use of flags of truce, cartels, exchange of prisoners, and
the treatment of captured 'insurgents by the parent state as priscmers of war ; and, at
sea, employment by the insurgents of commissioned cruisers, and the exercise by the
parent government of the rights of blockade of insurgent ports against neutral com-
merce, and of stopping and searching neutral ves.sels at sea. If all these elements
exist, the condition of things is undoubtedly war : and it may be war before they are
all ripened into activity.
As to the relation of the foreign state to the contest, if it is solely o!i land, and the
foreign state is not contiguous, it is ditiicult to imagine a call for the recognition. If,
for instance, the United States should formally recognize belligerent rights iu an insur-
gent community at the center of Kurope, with no seaports, it would require a hardly
supposable necessity to make it else than a mere demonstration of moral support. But a
cswe may arise where a foreign state must decide whether to hold the parent state respon-
(Mr. Canning to Lord Granville on the Greek war, June 2'4i, 182G.) If the foreign state
sible for acts doneby the insurgents, ortodealwith the insurgents as a de facto goverDment
recognizes belligerency in the insurgents, it releases the parent state from responsibility
for whatever may be done by the insurgents, or not done by the parent state where the
insurgent power extends. (Mr. Adams to Mr. Seward, June 11, 1861, Dip. Corr. 105.)
In a contest wholly upon land, a contiguous state may be obliged to make the decision
whether or not to regard it as a war ; but, in practice, this has not been done by a
general and prospective iledaration, but by actual treatment of cases as they arise.
Where the iusurgi'uts and the parent state are maritime, and the foreijjn nation h»*
extensive commercial relations an*l tra<le at the jiorts of both, and the toreign nation
and either or both of the contending parties hav«i considerable naval force, and the'
domestic contest must extend itself over the sea, then the relations of the foreign stat*
to this contest are far ditl'erent.
In such a state of things the liability to political complications, and the questions of
right and duty to be decided at once, usually away from home, by private citizens or
naval otficers, seem to require an authoritative and general decision as to the statns of
the three parties involved. If the contest is a war, all foreign citizens and officers,
whether executive or judicial, are to follow one line of conduct. If it is not a war,
they are to follow a totally different line. If it is a war, the commissioned cmisers of
both sides may st(»p, search, and capture the foreign merchant- vessel ; and that vessel
must make no resistance and must submit to adjudication by a prize-court. If it is
not a war, the cruisers of neither party can stop or search the foreign merchant- vessel;
and that vessel may resist all attempts in that direction, and the ships-of-war of tbe
foreign state may attack and capture any cruiser persisting in the attempt. If i* ^*
war, foreign nations must await the adjudication of prize tribnnals. If it is not war,
no such tribunal can be opened. If it is war, the parent state may institute a blockade
jarf gentium of the insurgent ports, which foreigneis must respect ; but if it is not a war,
foreign nations having large commercial intercourse with the country will not respect
. a closing of insurgent ports by paper decrees only. If it is a war, the insurgent cruisers
are to be treated by foreign citizens and oflicials, at sea and iu port, as lawful belliger.
OPINIONS OF SIR ALEXANDER COCKBURX. 317
ents. If it is not a war, thooe cruisers are pirates, and may be treated as such. If it
is a war, the rules and risks respecting carrying contraband, or dispatches, or military
persons, come into play. If it is not a war, they do not. Within foreign jurisdiction,
if it is a war, acts of the insurgents in the way of preparation and equipments for
hostility may be breaches of neutrality laws ; while, if it is not a war, they do not
come into that category, but under the category of piracy or ot crimes by municipal '
law.
Now, all citizens of a foreign state, and all its executive officers and judicial magis-
trates, look to the political department of their government to prescribe the rule of
their conduct in all their possible relations with the parties to the contest. This rule
is prescribed in the best and most intelligible manner for all possible contingencies by
the simple declaration that the contest is, or is not, to be treated as war. If the state
of things requires the decision, it must be made by the political department of the
government. It is not tit that cases should be left to be decided as they may arise, by
private citizens, or naval or judicial officers, at home or abroad, by sea or land. It is,
therefore, the custom of nations for the political department of a foreign state to make
the decision. It owes it to its own citizens, to the contending parties, and to the peace
of the world, to make that decision seasonably. If it issues a formal declaration of
belligerent rights prematurely, or in a contest with which it has no complexity, it is a
gratuitous and unfriendly act. If the parent governiaent complains of it, the com-
plaint must be ma<le upon one of these grounds. To decide whether the recognition
was uncalled for and premature requires something more than a consideration of prox-
imate facts, and the overt and formal acts of the contending* parties. The foreign
state is bound and entitled to consider the preceding history of the parties; the mag-
nitude and completeness of the political and military organizations and preparations
on each side ; the probable extent of the conflict by sea and land ; the probable extent
and rapidity of its development; and, above all, the probability that its own merchant-
vessels, naval officers, and consuls may be precipitated into sudden and difficult com-
plications abroad. The best that can be said is, that the foreign state may protect
Itself by a seasonable decision ; either upon a test cane that arises, or by a gen-
eral prospective decision; while, on the other hand, if it makes the recognition
]»rematurely, it is liable to the suspicion of an unfriendly purpose to the parent state.
The recognition of belligerent rights is not solely to the advaut<ige of the insurgents.
They ^aiu the great advantage of a recognized status, and the opportunity to employ
commiSMioued cruisers at sea, and to exert all the powers known to maritime warfare,
with the sanction of foreign nations. They can obtain abroad loans, military and
naval materials, and enlist men, as against everything but neutrality-laws ; their flag
and commissions are acknowledgeil, tneir revenue-laws are respected, and they acquire
a quasi political recognition. On the other hand, the parent government is relieved from
res|>ODsibility for acts done in the insurgent territory ; its blockade of its own ports
is respected; and it acquires a right to exert, against neutral commerce, all the powers
of a party to a maritime war.
Mr. Dana, though writing after the present dispute, and with refer-
ence to it, pronounces no opinion upon it, but the principles he has thus
laid down enable us to judge of the matter without difficulty.
This question was the subject of a solemn decision in the case already
cited of the Santissima Trinidad. One of the points there j^^ su.ii.Mina
raised being that the government of Buenos Ayres, under Trinai-a.
whose commission the vessel had taken prizes, was invalid, the inde-
'pendeiice of that State not having: been recognized by the Government
of the United States, Mr. Justice Story thus disposes of the objection :
There is another objection urged against the admission of this vessel to the privi-
leges and immunities of a public ship, which may as well be disposed of in counection
with the question already considered. It is, that Buenos Ayres has not yet been ac-
knowledged as a sovereign independent government by the executive or legislature of
the United States, and tnurefore it is not entitled to have her ships of war recognized by
our courts as national ships. We have, in former cases, had occasion to express our opin-
ion on this XH)int. The Government of the United States has recognized the existence
of a civil war between Spain and her colonies, and has avowed a determination to re-
main neutral between the parties, and to allow to each the same rights of asylum and
hospitality and intercourse. Each party is, therefore, deemed by us a belligerent na>
tioQ, having, so far as concerns ns, the sovereign rights of war, and entitled to be re>
Rpected in the exercise of those rights. We cannot interfere to the prejudice of either
l]«lligerent without making ourselves a party to the contest and departing firom the pos-
ture of neutrality. AU captures made by each must be conbidered as having the same
validity, and aU the immunities which may be claimed by pablio ships in oar ports,
under the law of nations, must be considered as equally the r'glit of each ; and, assuoh.
318 ARBITRATION AT GENEVA.
mnst be ivcopjuized hy our courts of justice until Con<jn;ss shsiU prescribe a different
rule. This ^nthe doctrine heretolbre asserted by this court, aud we see no reasou to de-
part from itJ
An attempt bas indeed been made to show that tbe judgment in the
foregoing case has been overruled or shaken by the succeeding judg-
ment in the case of the Gran Para, in wiiich it is alleged that, notwith-
standing the commission of a belligerent power, a vessel was held to
be subject to the jurisdiction of a court of the United States. I have
already shown that, in that case, in which the validity of a capture
made by a privateer fitted out in the United States was questioned by
reason of the illegal character of the capturing vessel, the latter was not
a ship-of-war commissioned by a belligerent government, but simply ati
American vessel commissioned as a privateer; nor, indeed, sailing as a
privateer under the commission of a recognized belligerent. She still
remained, therefore, the private property of an American citizen, unpro-
tected by any commission whatever, and a capture made by her could
not be held to be good prize.
In the recent case of the British bark, the Hiawatha, and of the Mex-
ican schooner Brillante, which were captured by ships of the United
States for endeavoring to run the blockade, and which had been coa-
demned as prize, an appeal having been brought, and an objection hav-
ing been taken that the Confederate States could not properly be held
to be belligerents, and that consequently the President had no right to
establish a blockade, Mr. Justice Grier, in delivering the judgment of
the majority of the Court, lays down the following important proposi-
tions :
Insurrection a^^ainst a tjovennneut may or may not culminate in an organized rebel-
lion ; but a civil war always beijins by insurrectioii against the lawful authority of tbe
government. A civil war is never solemnly dechired ; it becomes such by its acci-
dents—the number, power, aud organization of the persons who originate aud carry it
on. When the party in rebellion ocoupj- and hold in a hostile manner a certain por-
tion of territory, have declared their independence, have cast off their allegiance,
have organized armies, have commenced hostilitien against their former sovereinn^,
the world acknowledges them as belligerents, and the contest a tear. They claim to be
in arms to establish their liberty and independence, in order to become a sovereign
state, while the sovereign party treats them as insurgents and rebels who owe alle-
giance, and who should be punished with death for their treason.
The laws of war, as established among nations, have their foundation in reason, and
all tend to mitigate the cruelties and mistnies produced by the scourge of war. HeDce
the parties to a civil war usually concede to each other belligerent rights Tbey
exchange prisoners, and adopt the other courtesies aud rules commou to public or
national wars.
It is not the less a civil war with belligerent parties in hostile array, because it may
be caUed an "insurrection" by one side, and the insurgents be considered as rebels or
traitors. It is not necessary that the independence of the revolted province or state
be acknowledged, in order to constittite it a party belligerent in a war according to tbe
law of nations. Foreign nations acknowledge it as war by a declaration of neutrality.
The condition of neutrality cannot exist unless there be two belligerent parties. la
the case of the Santisifima Trinidad, (7 Wheaton, *)37,) this court say : "Theftovemnient
of tne United States has recognized the existence of a civil war between Spain and her
colonies, and has avowed her determination to remain neutral between the partie<«.
Each party is therefore deemed by usa belligerent nation, having, so far as concerns iiiit
the sovereign rights of war. ''
The law of nations is also called the law of nature ; it is founded on the common con-
sent as well as the common sense of the world. It contains no such anomalous doc-
trine as that which this court are now for the first time desired to pronounce, to wit,
that insurgents who have rivsen in rebellion against their sovereign, expelled ber
courts, established a revolutionary government, organized armies, and commenced b<M-
tilities, are not enemies because they are traitors; and a war levied on the govern-
ment by traitors, in order to dismember and destroy it, is not a war because it is an
** insurrection.''
* Hritish Appendix, vol. iii, p. 86.
o^I^'Io^^s ob^ sir Alexander cockburn. 319
Chief Justice Taney, Mr. Justice Nelson, Mr. Justice Ciitron, and Mr.
Justice Clifford differed, indeed, from the majority of the court, on the
(luestion as to whether the blockade was, in its inception, lawful, fouud-
u]<^ their opinion upon the fact that though by the Constitution of the
Unite<l States the President could, in case of invasion or% insurrection,
rail out the national forces, Congress alone could declare war, and that,
('ongress not having declared war till the 13th of July, 1861, the Presi-
dent had no power to declare a blockade, and consequently that the
seizure of these vessels was illegal. But there was no difference of
opinion on the question of belligerent status so soon as civil war is de-
clared.
The practice of nations has been entirely in accordance with these
principles. All the maritime nations — the others were not concerned in
the matter — concurred in according to the confederate government the
status and rights of a belligerent power. •
But though it would seem impossible to contest that, at some time
iluriug the continuance of the civil war, the recognition of Aviu.th*r.,kn-u.i.
the belligerent status of the confederate government must "'^" '• «^* " "-
have taken place, it is asserted that the recognition by the British gov-
ernment was premature. I will endeavor to take a calm and dispas-
sionate view of the position of the parties, and of this much-agitated
question.
Looking to the state of things which had thus come into existence.
Her Mjijesty's government could not but see that it would soon become
not only right, but also necessary to the protection of British interests,
to concede to the insurgent states the character of belligerents. As
soon as it was known in Great Britain that the war was to be extended
to naval operations, the interests of British commerce and British sub-
jects required that the belligerent status of both parties to the great
struggle, which was evidently about to ensue, should be clearly ascer-
tained and defined. It was plain that a state of things was about to
present itself, such as Mr. Dana refers to, as justifying the recognition
of belligerency. Much reliance is placed in the Case of the United
States, page 51, for the purpose of establishing the desire of the
British government to recognize the insurgents as belligerents at an
unduly early period, that as early as the 1st of May, Earl llussell wrote
the letter of that date to the lords of the admiralty.
The letter is as follows :
The inteHigence whicli roached this country by the last mail from the United Stat«\s
iiives reason to suppose that a civil war between the Northern and Southern States of
tbe Confederacy was imminent, if indeed it might not be considered to have already
beifuu.
?>iiDultaneously with the arrival of this news, a telegram, purporting to have been
conveyed to Halifax from the Unitinl States, wiis received, which announced that the
President of the southern confedercy had taken steps for issuing lett el's of marque
against the vessels of the Northern JStates.
If Huch is really the case, it is obvious that much inconvenience may be occasioned
to the numerous British vessels engaged in trade on the coast of the United States and
in the Gnlf of Mexico, and that timely provision should be made for their protection
ag:iiiist undue molestation by reason of the maritime operations of the hostile parties;
and Her Majesty has accordingly commanded me to signify to your lordships her pleas-
ure that adetpiate re-inforcements should forthwith be sent to Her Majesty's squadron
on the North American and West Indian station, so that the admiral in command may
1>e able duly to provide for the protection of British shipping in any emergeucy that
luay occur.
I need scarcely observe to your lordships that it might be right to apprise the admiral
that, much as Her Majesty regrets the prospect of civil war breaking out in a country
in the happiness and i>eace of which Her Majesty takes the deepest interest, it is Her
Majesty^s pleasure that nothing should be done b^ her naval forces which should indi-
cate any partiality or preference for either party in the contest that may ensue.^
^Appendix to British Case, vol. iii, p. 3.
320 ARBITRATION AT GENEVA.
When I s.'iy that the foregoing letter is relied on, I must correct my-
self. It is relied on only in a mutilated form. The third paragraph of
the letter, which gives the key to its purpose, and supplies the motive
of the writer, is, I regret to say, omitted — its place being supplied by
asterisks — wWle the other paragraphs are given at length.^ When the
letter is before us in its entirety, we see plainly that the purpose Earl
Kussell had in view was, not to give any advantage to the insurgents,
but to secure protection to British shipping in case the invitation of the
confederate president should have the eliect of letting loose a swarm of
privateers in the American waters.
There can, however, be no doubt that, prior to the issuing of the
Queen's proclamation of neutrality, Her Majesty's ministers, having
become acquainted with the relative position of the two parties, and see-
ing plainly that this was no ordinary revolt, and that insurrection had
assumed the form^of organized government and of organized warfare,
and looking to the dimensions the contest was about to take, had come
to the conclusion that it would be impossible to withhold from the in-
surgent government the character and rights of belligerents.
At the time the letter last cited was written, nothing was known
beyond the fact that the confederate government were preparing to issue
letters of marque; but on the ensuing day, the 2d, came the news that
President Lincoln had proclaimed a blockade of all the Southern ports,
though the terms of the proclamation were not yet known. Hereupon
the government, in anticipation of any emergency that might arise,
adopted the constitutional course of consulting the law-officers of the
Crown.
" Her Majesty's government heard the other day," said Lord John
Russell in the House of Commons on the 2d of May —
That the coufederated States Lave issued letters of marque, and to-day ire have
heard that it is intended there shall be a blockade of all the ports of the Southern
States. As to the general provisions of the law of nations on the.se qnestions, some of
the points are so new as well as so important that they have been referred to thel SW'
officers of the Crown for their opinion, in order to guide the government in its instruc-
tions both to the English minister in America and the commander-ib-chief of the naval
squadron. Her Majesty's government haa felt that it was its duty to use every possible
means to avoid taking any part in the lamentable contest now raging iu the American
States. Nothing but the imperative duty of protecting British interests, in case they
should be attacked, jiistifies the government m at all interfering. We have not been
involved in any way in that contest, by any act or giving any advice in the uiatt^^r,
and, for God's sake, let us, if possible, keep out of it.-
On the 6th of May Lord John Russell stated in the House of Com-
mons that the law-officers and the government had come to the conclu-
sion that, according to principles which seemed to them to be just, the
Southern Confederacy must be treated as a belligerent.^
A dispatch to Lord Lyons of the same day, in which Earl Russell
develops his views on the subject, is worthy of a wise and considerate
statesman :
My Lord : Her Majesty's government are disappointed in not having received from
you, by the mail which has just arrived, any report of the state of affairs and of the
prospects of the several parties, with reference to the issue of the struggle which
appears, unfortunately , to have commenced between them ; but the iuterrnption of the
communication between Washington and New York sufficiently explains the non-arrival
of your dispatches.
The accounts, however, which Her M{\jesty's consuls at different ports were enabled
to forward by tlie packet, coincide iu showing that, whatever may be the final result of
* See Case of the United State<$, p. 51.
2 Hansard, vol. clxii, p. 1378; United States Documents, vol, iv, p. 482.
3 Hansard, vol. clzii, p. 1564 ; United States Documents, vol. iv, p. 4d:{.
OPIKIONS OF SIR ALEXANDER COCKBURN, 321
what cannot now be designated otherwise than as the civil war which has broken ont
between the several States of the late Union, for the present, at least, those States
haye separated into distinct confeder^ies, and, as such, are carrying on war against
each other.
The question for nentral nations to consider is, what is the character of the war ;
and whether it shonld be regarded as a war carried on between parties severally in a
position to wage war, and to claim the rights and to perform the obligations attaching
to belligerents.
Her Migesty's government consider that that question can only be answered in the
affirmative. If tne government of the northern portion of the late Union possesses tbd
advantages inherent in long-established governments, the government of the southern
portion has, nevertheless, duly constituted itself, and* carries on, in a regular form, the
administration of the civil government of the States of which it is composed.
Her Migesty's government, therefore, without assuming to pronounce upon the
merits of the question on which the respective parties are at issue, can do no less than
accept the facts presented to them. They deeply deplore the disruption of a confederacy
with which they have at all times sought to cultivate the most friendly relations ; they
view with the greatest apprehension and concern the misery and desolation in which
that disruption threatens to involve the provinces now arrayed iu arniH against each
other; but they feel that they cannot question the right of the Southern States to
claim to be recognized as a belligerent, and, as such, invested with all the rights and
prerogatives of a belligerent.^
Whether the determination to acknowledge the Confederate States as
belligerents was come to a few' days too soon or not, is a matter on
which there may possibly be a diflFerience of opinion. But that, on this
acconnt, British statesmen, acting under an anxious sense of duty, in
furtherance of what they believed to be a just and necessary policy,
should be publicly accused of having been influenced by the minister de-
sign of promoting the interests of the one party at the expense of the
other, while pretending simply to fulfill the duties incidental to their
position toward both parties, is a painful thing. The world must judge
between the accusers and the accused.
Whether the resolution was come to too soon or not, it was not .acted
upon till the events which rapidly supervened could leave no doubt on
the minds of Her Majesty's ministers as to issuing the proclamation of
neutrality. On the 10th of May, a dispatch was received from Lord
Lyons, containing a copy of the proclamation of President Davis as to
issuing letters of marque, and a copy of that of President Lincoln,
declaring that southern privateers should be treated as pirates, and
announcing the blockade of the southern ports.'
The British government contends, and, as it seems to me, most justly,
that when, by declaring the southern ports blockaded, the President
openly acknowledged the existence of a civil war, and thereby recog-
nized" the Confederate States a« belligerents in the face of the world, he
thereby rendered it not only the right but the duty of the British gov-
ernment to treat them as such.
That it became the right of Her Majesty's government so to treat them
can admit of no possible doubt; no jurist, I am satisfied, will assert the
contrary. The pretension that the Federal Government could treat the
contest as a war, so as to declare a blockade, and thereby exclude neutral
nations from access to the blockaded ports for the purpose of trade, while
neutral governments, on the other hand, were not entitled to treat tlie
war as one going on between two belligerent powers, is a proposition
which is, I say it with all respect for Mr. Adams, really preposterous.
Applying the principles laid down by the editor of Wheaton, in the
note which I have quoted at length, as well as by^ the other eminent
jurists to whom I have referred, can any one doubVthat Her Majesty's
govemmeilt were fully justified in recognizing the belligerent character
^ United States Docnmeuts, vol. i, p. 37.
'Britiiili Appendix, voL iii, p. 6^
21 B
322 ARBITRATION AT GENEVA.
of tbe Confederate States? Wlien the war between the two parties to
the coiit>est became extended to the ocean, the interests of maritime ua-
tions, and more especially of Great Britain, with its extensive commerce
with the ports of both Southern and Northerft States, became at once
seriously involved. Between Great Britain and the southern ports there
was the constant intercourse of an active and extensive commerce. The
British ship-owners and merchants had a right to look to the government
for protection to ships and cargoes, if interfered with, in time of peace,
in any way not warranted by international law. It was the duty of Her
Majesty's ships of war stationed oh the neighboring naval stations, or
detached from them, to aflTord that protection. So long as the war was
not acknowledged by Her Majesty as a legitimate war, any interference
by either belligerent with a British ship might have proved the occit-
sion of some serious collision.
With the recognition by Her Majesty of the war, all her sabjects would
know that the blockade must be treated as a lawful one, and that any
trade attempted to be carried on with the blockaded ports would be at
the peril of the parties attempting it.
Unless the blockaded ports were treated as the ports of a belligerent,
there could be no lawful blockade. The blockade of its own ports by a
state, to the exclusion of those who have a right to trade with its sub-
jects, is a thing unknown and unheard of. The subjects of Great Britain
had, by existing treaties, the right of trading with those of the United
States. If the citizens of the Southern States were still to be looked
upon as citizens of the United States, British merchant-ships had a right
of free access to the southern ports notwithstanding the blockade. Nor
could the British government deprive them of this right, or refuse them
its protection if forcibly interfered with.
The effect of a blockade in the disturbance of. contracts previously
made makes it of the utmost importance to the commercial world to
have the earliest notice of the fact, and of the recognition of it by the gov-
ernment ; the more so as it has been considered that official notice of a
blockade to a government is sufficient notice to its subjects.
All these important considerations appear to me to show, beyond the
possibility of dispute, that it becomes the duty of a neutral government,
when it is made aware of the fadt of a blockade, to give notice of it to
its subjects at the very earliest moment.
The alternative of refusing to acknowledge the war as a war between
two belligerent powers, was therefore to refuse to acknowledge tbe
blockade. Would the United States have preferred that Great Britain
should adopt this alternative f
By establishing the blockade, therefore, the Government of the United
States made it, as I have said, not only the right but the duty of Her
l^jesty's government to acknowledge the -belligerency of the confed-
erates, and thus to give to the war, so far as British subjects were con-
cerned, the incidents which attach to war, as respects the relative rights
and obligations of belligerents and neutrals.
The policy of the government was explained and justified by Lord
Bussell in a letter to Mr. Adams, of the 4th May^ 1865 :
Let me remind you that when the civil war in America broke out so enddenly'
BO violently, and so extensively, that event, in the preparation of whieh Great Britain
bad no share, caused notbioj^ but detriment and injury to Her Majesty's subjects ; Great
Britain had previously carrte<l on a large commerce with the Southern'States of tbe
Union, and had procured there the staple which furnil^hed materials for the. industry of
millions of her people.
Had there been no war, the existing treaties with tbe United States w«ald have
secured the continuance of a commerce mutuaUy advantageous and desirable. Bac
f
OPINIONS OF SIR ALEXANDER COCKBURN. 323
wbat was th^ first act of the President of the United States? He proclaimed on thd
IDth of Aprilf 1861, the blockade of the ports of seven States of the Union. But he
coald lawfully interrupt the trade of neutrals to the Southern States npon one ground
only, namely, that the Southern States were carrying on war against the Government
of the Uuiteid States; in other wonls, that they were hellicerents.
Her Majesty's government, on hearing of these events, bad only two courses to pur-
sue, namely, that of acknowledging the blockade, and proclaiming the neutrality of
Her Majesty, or that of refusing to acknowledge the blockade, and insisting upon the
the rights of Her Mfgesty's subjects to trade with the ports of the South. Her Maj^ty's
government pursued the former course as at once the most just and the most friendly
to the Unitea States.
It is obvions, indeed, that the course of treating the vessels of the Southern States
as piratical vessels, and their crews as pirates, would have been to renounce the char-
acter of neutrals, and to take part in the war ; nay, it would have been doing more
than the Unitod States themselves, who have never treated the prisoners they have
made either by land or sea as rebels and pirates, but as prisoners of war, to be detained
until regularly exchanged.
So much as to the step, which yon say your Govemtnent can never regard " as other-
wise than precipitate,'' of acknowledging the Southern States as belligerents. It was,
on the contrary, your own Gk)vernment which, in assuming the belligerent right of
blockade, recognized the Sonthern States as belligerents. Had they not been belli-
gerents, the armed ships of the United States would have had no right to stop a single
British ship upon the high seas.^
Bat it is said that the recognition was prematnrey because, when it
was made, the oQicial annoancement of the blockade had not yet been
received. What if this bad been so f The blockade existed in fact ;
it was known to the British government; and it was important to Her
Majesty's subjects that it should be made known to them at the earliest
po^ible moment. But this assumption, rashly made in the case of th6
United States, turns out to be incorrect. The facts stood thus : The
proclamation of the President with regard to the ports of the seven
States was issued on the 19th of April. It was followed by a similar
proclamation of the 27th, as to the ports of NorthCarolina and Virginia.
The blockade was effectually established on the dUth. The issuing of
the proclamation^ was communicated to Lord Lyons, the minister of
Great Britain at Washington, on the 29th. On the 1st of May, Mr.
Seward, the Secretary of State of the United States, writes to him as
follows :
The so-calfed Confederate States have waged an insurrectionary war against this
Government. They are bnying and even seizing vessels in several places for the pur-
pose of furnishing themselves with a naval force, and they are Issuing letters of marque
to privateers to oe employed in preying on the commerce of this country. Tou are
awaie that the President ha& proclaimMl a blockade of the ports inolnded within the
iasorgent^tates. AH these circumstances are known to the world.^
On the 3d of May the proclamation of the blockade, which had ap>
peared in the Boston newspapers, was published in the London news-
papers. It 'turned out afterward that there were inaccuracies in the
version thus given by the Bostou newspapers^ but the substance of the
thing remained the same ; there was no doubt that the blbckade had
been declared.
On the 5th of May, the government received a letter of the 23d of
April from their consul at New York, transmitting a copy, correct in
all essential particulars, of the proclamation of the blockade, as also a
complete copy of that of President Davis, inviting applications for letters
of marque.^ On the 10th of May, complete copies of both proclama-
tions were received from the British minister at Washington.*
In the mean time, a copy of the President's proclamation of the 19th
^United States Documental vol. i, p. 295.
* Appendix to British Case, vol. iii, p. 12.
' Appendix to British Case, tol. iii, p. 4.
-•Ibid., p. 6.
324 AKBITEATION Af GENEVA.
'of April having beeo forwarded by Mr. Secretary Seward to Mr. Dallas,
the United States minister in England, it was officially communicated
by Mr. Dallas to Lord Eassell on the 11th of May.' Her Majesty's
proclamation of neutrality was not issued till the 14th of May. Thus it
was not till three days after the official communication last referred to,
and nine days after a copy had been received from the British consol
at New York, that Her Majesty's proclamation of neutrality was is-
sued.
But it is said that the expected arrival of Mr. Adams should have been
awaited. What difference could it have made f No explanations af-
forded by that gentleman could have altered the facts — ^facts which
made it the duty of the government to advise Her Majesty to recognize
the validity of the blockade, and, in order so to do, te recognize also
the belligerent status of the de-facto confederate government
But the not waiting for Mr. Adams is put forward as a breach of faith
on the part of Earl Bussell, his lordship having, it is said, pledged
himself to Mr. Dallas, the predecessor of Mr. Adams, to await the arri-
val of the latter. Here again we have an entire misconception. No
such pledge was given, or intended to be given. What pa^ed between
Lord Eussell and Mr. Dallas appears from a letter of the latter to Mr.
Seward of the 2d of May :
The solicitude felt by Lord John Rnssell as to the effect of certain measures repre-
sented as likely to be adopted by the President, induced him to request me to csli at
bis private residence yesterday. I did so. He told me that the three representstives
of the Southern Confederacy were here ; that he had not seen theifa, but was not on-
willing to do »o, unofficially ; that there existed an understanding between the gov-
ernment and that of France, which would lead both to take the same coarse as to
recognition, whatever that course might be ; and he then referred to the rumor of a
meditated blockade of southern ports and their discontinuance as ports of eotiy—
topics on which I had heard nothing, and could therefore say nothing. But as I in-
formed him that Mr. Adams had apprised me of his intention to be on his way hither,
in the steamship Niagara, which left Boston on the Ist May, and that he would prob-
ably arrive in less than two week, by the 12th or 15th instant, fiis lordship aoqaiesced
in the expediency of disregarding mere rumor, and waiting the full knowledge to be
brought by my successor.^
It is plain that the motive for waiting the arrival of Mr. Adams was
to obtain positive knowledge in the place of ^'mere rumor"— that is,
^* nimor of a meditated blockade ; " not that there was any iDtention
of discussing with Mr. Adams the question of the proclamation of neu-
tralitj, if the rumor proved correct. When authentic information
came in the copies of the President's proclamation officially /nrnished
to the foreign office, full knowledge took the place of rumor, and tbe
latter •becameconverted into certainty. All motive for delay then ceased
and the time for action had arrived.
Yet this has been magnified into a breach of faitji, and that by per*
by the sons who had this letter before them.
The ^example of Great Britain in acknowledging the Confederate
ii«eoffniu<m«f:b«i- Statcs as bclligerents was followed by the Emperor of tlie
(imm^. Fiench in a proclamation of the 10th of June ; by the King
of the Ketherlauds on the 16th ; by the Queen of Spain on the 17th ;
Emperor of Brazil on the Ist of Angnst-.
The Government of the United States, however, refused to concede
cowie^ttf.nedbT^O'Ot^cr uatious thc right of acknowledging the belligerent
•r«ifi. powers, fitatus of thc sccedlug States, In these they saw only what
Mr. Seward termed " a discontented domestic faction." Writiug to Mr.
Dayton on the 30th of May, 1861, Mr. Seward says :
The United States cannot for a moment allow the French government to rest under
'^Appendix to British Case, vol. ill, page 7.
Suited States Documents; vol. i, p. 34.
OPINIONS OP SIR ALEXANDER COCKBURN. 325
the delnsive belief that they will be content to hare the Confederate States recognized
as a belligerent power bj states with which this nation is in amity. No concert of
action among foreign states so recognizing the insurgents can reconcile the United
States to such a proceeding, whatever may be the conseqaences of resistance. ^
In a dUpatch from Mr. Seward to Mr. Dayton, of the 17th of Jnne,
1861, the former writes:
The United States, rightly jealoos, as we think, of their sovereignty, cannot suffer
themselves to debate any abridgment of that sovereignty with France or with any
' other nation. Much less can it consent that France shall announce to it a conclusion
of her own against that sovereignty, which conclusion France has adopted without
any previous conference with the United States on the subject. This Qovemment in-
sists that the United States are one whole undivided nation, especially so far as foreign
nations are concerned, and that France is, by the law of nations and by treaties, not
a neutral power between two imaginary parties here, but a friend of the United
States.
It is erroneous, so far as foreign nations are conoemed, to suppose that any war ex-
ists in the United States. Certainly there cannot be two belligerent powers where
there is no war. There is here, as there has always been, one political power, namely,
tbe United States of America, competent to make war and peace, and conduct com-
merce and alliances with all foreign nations. There is none other either in fact or rec-
ognized by foreign nations. There is, indeed, an armed -sedition seeking to overthrow
the Oovermnent, and the Qovemment is employing military and naval forces to re-
press it But these facts do not constitute a war presenting two^belligerent powers,
and modifying the national character, rights, and responsibilities, or the characters,
rights, and responsibilities of foreign nations. It is true that insurrection may rij^en
into revolution, and that revolution thus ripened may extinguish a previously existing
state, or divide it into one or more independent states, and that if such states continue
their strife after such division, then there exists a state of war affecting the characters,
rights, and duties of all the parties concerned. But this only happens when the reve-
lation has thus run its successful course.
Tbe French government says, in the instruction which has been tendered to us, that
certain facts which it assumes confer upon the insurgents of this country, in the eyes
of forei^ powers, all the appearances of a government def<icto; wherefore, whatever
may be its regrets, the French government must •consider tbe two contending parties
as employing tbe forces at their disposal in conformity with the laws of war.
This statement assumes not only that the law of n^^tions entitles any insurrectiona-
ry faction, when it establishes a de-facUi government, to be treated as belligerent, but
also that the fact of the attainment of this status is to be determined by the ai>pearance
of it in the eyes of foreign nations. If we should concede both of these positions, we
shoold still insist that the existence of a de-facto government, entitled to belligerent
rights, is not established in the present case. '
In a dispatch of June 19 he writes:
What is now seen in this country is the occurrence, by no means peculiar, but fre-
qneut in all conntries, more fre(][nent even in Great Britain than here, of an armed in-
surrection engaged in attempting to overthrow the regularly, constituted and estab-
lished government. There is, of course, the employment of force by the Grovernment
to suppress the insurrection, as every other government necessarily employs force in
snch cases. But these incidents by no means constitute a state of war impairing the
Bovereignty of the Government, creating belligerent sections, and entitling foreign
states to intervene or to act as neutrals between them, or in any other way to cast off
their lawful obligations to the nation thus for the moment disturbed. '
WritiDg to Mr. Adams on the 21st of Jaly, he says:
The United States and Great Britain have assumed incompatible, and thus far irrec*
oncilable, positions on the subject of the existing insurrection.
The United States claim and insist that the integrity of the Republic is unbroken,
and that their Government is supreme, so far as foreign nations are concerned, as well
for war as for peace, over all tne States, all sections, and all citizens, the loyal not
more than the disloyal, the patriots and the insurgents alike. Consequently, they in-
sist that the British government shall in no way intervene in the insurrection, or hold
commercial or other intercourse with the insurgents in derogation of the Federal
anthority. *
The position assamed by the United States Government was plainly
untenable, being neither more nor less than this — that when a body of
I United States Appendix, vol. i, p. 192. > Ibid., p. 20^
» Ibid., p. 206. ' * Ibid., p. 214.
326 ARBITRATION AT GENEVA.
states secede from a former governmeut and form one of tbeir own, tbe
oiiginal government is to be the sole judge as to when the status of bel-
ligerency can be conceded — a proposition wholly at variance with all
received principles of international law.
How Lord Eussell viewed the matter appears from a dispatch to Lord
Lyons, of June 21:
I bave to state to your lordship that I have every reason to be satisfied with the
language and condnct of Mr. Adams since he has arrived in this country.
The ouly complaint which he has urged here is, that the Qneon's proclamation an
uouDcing her neatrality was hasty and premature.
I said, in the first place, that our position was of necessity one of neutrality; that
we could not take part either for the North against the South, or for the South against
the North.
To this he willingly assented j and said that the United States expected no assistance
from us to enable their Government to finish the war. .
I rejoined that if such was the case, as I supposed, it would not have been right
either toward our admirals and naval commanders, nor toward our merchants aod
mercantile marine, to leave them without positive and public orders ; that the exer-
cise of belli^rent rights of search and capture by a band of adventurers clustered in
some small island in the Greek Archipelago or in the Atlantic would subject them to
the penalties of piracy ; hot we ooula not treat 5,000,000 of men, who had declared
their independence, like a band of marauders or filibusters. If we had done so, we
should have done mof e than the United States themselves. Their troops had taken pris*
oners many of the adherents of the confederacy, but I could not perceive from the news-
papers that in any case they had brought these prisoners to trial for high treason, or shot
them as tebels. Had we hung the captain of an armed vessel of the southern confed-
eracv as a pirate, we should have done that which a sense of humanity had prohibited
on the part of the Government itself.
The question soon assumed a practical form. When the Grovernment
Qu»tion a. to of 'tho Confederate States had armed certain vessels, and
coafederau tM.«u jj^^ placcd thcm uttdcr the command of officers dnly com-
missioned by it, and those vessels pnt into ports of the neutral powers,
the Government of the United States protested loudly against their
being received as vessels of war, on the ground that the insargeot
States still formed an integral portion of the Union; that they were to
be looked upon as rebels ; and that commissions from a government,
the independence of which had not been acknowledged, could not give
to its ships the character of ships of war. They insisted, therefore, on
these vessels being looked upon as pirates, to which all entry into the
ports of other nations, and all assistance of every kind, should be denied.
The Federal Government even went further, and threatened to holdnea-
tral governmcfnts responsible for any assistance or supplies afforded to
confederate ships. But the neutral governments were unanimous in
refusing to accede to these demands, and persisted in conceding to the
confederate ships the same privileges as were afforded to those of the
United States. '
The question first arose with the government of the Netherlands, on
the occasion of a visit of the confederate vessel, the Snm-
r.?e^roeS'of "ihi tcr, to thc Dutch island of Curajoa, in August, 1861, and of
Netberuod* ^^^ boiug allowcd to replenish her stock of coal and obtain
supplies there. The fact having come to the knowledge of Mr. Seward,
he forthwith instructed Mr. Pike, the United States minister at tbe
Ilague, to bring the matter immediately to the notice of the Govern-
ment:
Yon are instrncted to bring this matter immediately to the notice of the government
of the Netherlands. The subject of damages for so great a violation of the rights of
the United States will be considered when we shall have properly verified the facts ot
the case. In the mean time yon will ask the government of the Netherlands for any
explanation of the transaction it may be able or see tit to give. Yon will farther say
that the United States^ if the case thus stated shall prove to bo correcti will expect^ in
OPINIONS OF SIR ALEXANDER COCKBURN. 327
Tiew of the treaties existing between the two countries, and the principles of the law
of nations, as well as npon the f^rotind of assarances recently received from the j^ov-
eniiueut of the Netherlands, that it will disown the action of its authorities at Cura^oa,
and will adopt efficient means to prevent a recurrence of such proceedings hereafter. ^
Mr. Pike accordingly protests against the idea ^^ that aid and counte-
nance could be afforded by a friendly power to the Sumter, though she
did assume the character of a ship of war of the insurgents. I claimed,"
lie says —
That were she afforded shelter and supplies on this ground by the authorities at
Curagoa, and should the Dutch government approve the act, it would be, substantially,
a recognition of the Southern Confederacy, and that, in my Judgment, such an act
would be regarded by the United States as an unfriendly and even hostile act, which
might lead to 'the gravest consequences. I held that nothing more need be asked by
the 8o-styled Confi^erate States, as a practical measure of recognition, than that a ship
like the Sumter, claiming to be a national vessel of those States, should bo permitted
to enter the neighboring ports of foreign nations, and there obtain the necessary means
to enable her to depredate upon the commerce of the United States. That such a
courte on the part of any power, aggravated by the fact that che was unable to obtain
such supplies at home, so far from being neutral conduct, was really to afford the moat
efltcient aid to the men who wore in rebellion against their own government, and
plaodering and destroying the vessels and property of their fellow-citizens on the high
seas. I protested against such a doctrine as tending necessarily to the termination of
all friendly relations between our Government and any government that would toler-
ate such practices, whether that government were France, or England, or Spain, or
Holland. I remarked that it was^ot for me to judge of the purposes of European
powers in regard to the existing state of things in the United States ; but if there were
to be exhibited a disposition anywhere to take advantage of our present situation, I
believed it would be found that such a course could not be taken with impunity now,
nor without leading to alienation and bitterness in the future.^
A correspondence ensued between Mr. Pike and Baron Van Zuylen,
the Netherlands minister for foreign affairs, in which the former denied
the right of other nations to accord to the insurgent States the charac-
ter of a belligerent power, and insisted that the vessels of the Confede-
rate government were but " piratical craft,'' or at best could only be
looked upon as privateers, in which character they would be excluded,
except in case of distress, from ports of the Netherlands.
M. Van Zuylen stated the views of his government in a most able
pai>er, from which, however, owing to its length, I must confine myself
to a few extracts :
It 18 not sufficient to dispose of the difficnlty by the declaration that the Sumter is,
as is stated in your dispatches, " a vessel fitted out for^ and actuallv engaged in, pirati-
cal expeditions,'' or " a privateer steamer." Such an assertion should be clearly proved,
in accordance with the rule of law, **affimianti incumbit prohatioJ^
After having poised, with all the attention which comports with the weightiness of
the matter, the facts and circumstances which characterize the dissensions which now
are laying desolate the United States, and of which no governmet^t more desires the
prompt termination than does that of the Netherlands, I think I may express the con-
viction that the Sumter is u6t a privateer, but a man-of-war, grounding myself on
the following considerations :
In the first place, the declaration of the commander of the vessel, given in writing
to the governor of Cura^oa, who had made known that he would not allow a privateer
to come into the port, and liad then demanded explanations as to the character of the
vessel. This declaration purported, '' the Sumter is a ship of war, duly commissioned
by the government of the Confederate States/'
The Netherlands governor had to be contented with the word of the commander
couched in writing. M. Ortolan, (" Diplomatic de la mer," i, p. 217,) in speaking of the
evidence of nationality of vessels of war, thus expresses himself :
** The flag and the pennant are .visible indications ; but we are not bound to give
faith to them until they are sustain^ by a cannon-shot."
The attestation of the conimander may be exigible, but other proofs must be pre-
sumed ; and, whether ou the high seas or elsewhere, no foreign power has the right to
obtain the exhibition of them.
*4iritish Appendix, vol. vi, p. 69.
« Ibid., p. 70.
328 ARBITRATION AT GENEVA.
Therefore the coloniiil coiiDcil has unaDimously conclnded that the word of the com-
mandiDg officer was BufflcieDt.
In the second place, the vessel armed for war by priyate persons is called " priva-
teer." The character of sach vessel is settled precisely, and, like her English name,
(privateer,) indicates sufficiently onder this circnmstance that she is a private armed
vessel — name which Mr. Wheaton irives them.—^'* Elements of International Law,'' ii,
p. 19.)
Privateering is the maritime warfare which privateers are authorized to make, foi
their own account, against merchant-vessels of 'the enemy, by virtue of letters of marque,
which are issued to them by the state.
The Sumter is not a private -vessel ; is not the private property of unconnected indi-
viduals— of private ship-owners, tilie, therefore, cannot be a privateer; she can only
be a ship of war or ship of the stat«, armed for cruising. Thus the Sumter is desij^-
nated, in the extract annexed from Harper's Weekly, under the name of ''rebel ship of
war."
Thirdly. It cannot be held, as vou propose in your dispatch of the 9th of this month,
that all vessels carrying the oouiederate fla^ are, without distinction, to be considered
as privateers, because tne principles of the law of nations, as well as the examples of
history, require that the rights of war bo accorded to those States.
The Government of the United States holds that it should consider the States of the
South as rebels.
It does not pertain to the King's government to pronounce upon the subject of s
question which is entirely within the domain of- the internal regulation of the United
States ; neither has it to inquire whether, in virtue of the Constitution which rules
that republic, the States of the South can separate from the central Government, and
whether they ought then, aye or no, to be reputed as rebels during the first period of
the difficulties.^
After referring to historical precedents, especially the case of the
United States themselves in their straggle for independence, " is there
need," he asks, '' to remind you that at the ont^t of the war of Ameri-
can independence, in 1778,' the English refused to recognize American
privateers as lawful enemies, under pretense that tha letters of marqae
which they bore did not emanate from the sovereign, but from revolted
subjects? But Great Britain soon had to desist from this pretension,
and to accord international treatment to the colonists in arms against
the mother country.''
M. Van Zuylen cites also the precedent of the American privateer
Paul Jones :
This vessel, considered as a pirate by England, had captured two of His Britannic
Majesty's ships in October, 1779. She took them into the Texel, and remained tbere
more than two months, notwithstanding the representations of Mr. York, ambasaador
of Great Britain at the Hague, who considered the asylum accorded to such priyateer
Tpirate as he called it in his Memoir to the States-Geuoral of Slst March, 1780) as
airectly contrary to treaties, and even to the ordinances of the Government of the
Republic.
Mr. York demanded that the English vessels should be released.
Tlie States-General refused the restitution of the prizes.
The United States, whose belligerent rights were not recognized by England, enjoyed
at that period the same treatment in the ports of the Republic of the United Provinccfl
as the Netherlands authorities have now accorded to the Confederate States,
If the cabinet of the Hague cannot, therefore, b^ force of the preceding, class all the
vessels of the Confederate States armed for war lu the category of privateers, mach
less can it treat them as pirates, (as you call them in your dispateh of the 12th of this
mouth,) or consider the Sumter as engaged in a filibustering expedition — '* engaged in
a piratical expedition against the commerce of the United States,'^ as it reads in your
communication of the WL of September.^
The subject was resumed in the ensuing October, when the Sumter
had again put into a Dutch port, namely, Paramaribo, and, in spite of
the remonstrance of the United States consul, ha<l been allowed to
coal and refit. Mr. Seward immediately directs Mr. Pike to demand
explanations. Mr. Pike loses no time in writing in peremptory terms:
The reappearance of the Sumter in a port of the Netherlands, after so brief ab inter-
val, seems to disclose a deliberate purpose on the part of tjie persons eugaged in the
^British Appendix, vol. vi, pp. 76, 77.
OPINIONS OF SIR ALEXANDER COCKBURN. 329
rebellion against the United States Oovemment to practice npon the presumed
indifference, the expected favor, or the fancied weakness of the Datch Qovernment.
Daring a period of forty-six days, daring which wo have heard of this piratical
vessel in the West Indies, it would appear that she had been twice entertained and
Bupplied at Dutch ports, and spent eighteen days under their shelter.
Tnis can be no accidental circumstance.
In the multitude of harbors with which the West India seas abound, the Sumter has
had no occasion to confine her visits so entirely to the ports of one nation, especially
one so scantily supplied with them as Holland. And the fact that she does so is, in my
judgment, not fairly susceptible of any other interpretation than the one I have given.
I feel convinced that the government of the Netherlands will see in this repeated
visit of the Sumter ^this time, it apiiears, without any pretext) a distinct violation of
its neutrality tMcordmg to its own views, as laid down in your excellency's communi-
cation Uk me of the 17ui of September last, and a case why^h will call for the energetic
assertion of its purpose, expressed in the paper referred to, namely, not to allow its
porta to be made the base of hostile operations against the United States. For that
the Snmter is clearly making such use of the Dutch ports would seem to i^mit of no
controversy.'
In reply. Baron Yao Zuylen repeats the refusal of the royal govern-
ment to treat the Sumter as other than a ship of war. He observes
that the commission of the officer in command of her had been duly
exhibited to the governor. At the same time he informs Mr. Pike —
However, the government of the Netherlands, wishing to give a fresh proof of its
desire [to avoid] all that could give the slishtest subject for complaint to the United
States, has just sent instructions to the colonial authorities, enjoining them not to
admit, except in case of shelter from stress, {reldche forcSe,) the vessels of war and pri-
vateers of tne two belligerent x)arties, unless for twice twenty-four hours, and not to
permit them, when they are steamers, to provide themselves ^dth a quantity of coal
more than sufficient for a run of twenty-four hours.^
The offensive tone of Mr. Pikers previous letter does not pass unno-
ticed:
The feeling of distrust which seems to have dictated your last dispatch of the 8tb
of this month, and which shows itself especially in some entirely erroneous apprecia-
tions of the con^duct of the government of the Netherlands, gives to the last, strong
in its good faith and in Its friendly intentions, just cause for astonishment, So, then,
the cabinet of which I have the honor to form part, deems that it may dispense with
undertaking a justification useless to all who examine impartiaUy, and without pas-
sion, tiie events which have taken place.^
In the mean 1;ime, Mr. Seward had written a dispatch to Mr. Pike, of
the 17th October, in which he states, in explicit terms, " for the informa-
tion of the government of the Netherlands, just what the United States
claim and expect in regard to the matter in debate."
They have asked for an explanation of the case, presented by the admission of the
Sumter by the Qovemor of Curayoa, if one can be satisfactorily given ; and if not, ,
then for a disavowal of that officer's proceedings, attended oy a justly-deserved
rebuke.
These demands have been made, not from any irritation or any sensibility of national
pride, bat to make it sure that henceforth any piratical vessel fitted out by or under
the aeeney of disloyal American citizens, and cruising in pursuit of merchant-vessels of
the United States, shall not be admitted into either the continental or the colonial i>orts
of the NetherlandbB under any pretext whatever. If that assurance cannot be obtained
in some way, we must provide for the protection of our rights in some other way.
Thna the subject is one of a purely practical character; it neither requires nor ad-
mits of debate or argument on the part of the United States. If what is thus desired
shall be obtamed by the United States in any way, they will be satisfied ; if it fails to
be obtained through the disinclination of the government of the Netherlands, its pro-
ceedings in this respect wiU be deemed unfriendly and injurious to the United States.
The United States being thus disposed to treat the subject in a practical way, they are
not tenacious about the manner or form in which the due respect to their rights is
manifested by the government of the Netherlands, and still less about the considera-
tions or i^uments upon which that government regulates its own conduct in the
matter. They regard the whole insurrection in this country as ephemeral ; indeed,
1 * British Appendix, vol. vi, p. 82.
8 Ibid., p. 84.
» Ibid., p. 85.
330 ARBITKATION AT GENEVA.
they believe that the attempt at piracy, nnder the name of privateering, made by the
insurgents, has already well nigh failed. While, therefore, they iasist that shelter
shall not be afforded to the pirates by nations in friendship with the United States,
they, at the same time, are not unwilling to avoid grave debates concerning their rights
that might sur^'ive the existing controversy. It remains only to say, in this connec-
tion, that the course which the United States are pursuing in their complaints to the
government of the Netherlands is not peculiar to, out it is the same which has been
and which will be pursued toward any other maritime power on the occurrence of
similar grievances.
With these remarks I proceed to notice Boron Van Znylen's communication. Yon
will repi V to him that the United States unreservedly claim to determine for themselves
absolutely the character of the Sumter, she being a vessel fitted out, owned, armed,
sailed, and directed by American citizens who owe allegiance to the United States, and-
who neither have nor can, in their piratical purposes and pursuits, have or claim any
political authority from any*lawfnl source wnatever.
The United States regard the vessel as piratical, and the persona by whom she is
manned and navigated as pirates.
The United States, therefore, cannot admit that the Sumter is a ship of war or a pri-
vateer, and so entitled to any privileges whatever, in either of those characters, in
the port of Cura^oa ; nor can they debate any sach subject with the government of the
Netherlands.^
Mr. Pike expresses his satisfaction at the restrictions placed by the
government of the Netherlands on the confederate vessels, but at the
same time regrets that the same treatment should have been adopted
toward the vessels of the United States; to which M. Van Zuylea re-
plies that the United States Government having desired that measures
should be taken to prevent the prolonged stay in Dutch ports of the
Sumter Or other vessels in the seceding States, the King's government
had admitted the justice of the claim, but that the measures taken
could not reach one of the two parties exclusively ; they must be gen-
eral.
The new regulations led to a singular result. On the 8th of Novem-
ber the United States steamer Iroquois arrived off the port of Curajoa;
the governor informed Lieutenant Palmer, who was in command of the
vessel, that her stay must be limited to forty-eight hours,'and her sup-
ply of coal to twenty -four hours' consumption, although at the time the
United States had more than 1,300 tons of coal at Gura^oa, which, by
the way, shows that they had established a depot there. Lieutenant
Palmer declined to enter the port on these terms^ and his conduct in so
doing was approved by Mr. Seward. Mr. Pike is directed to ask for
explanations, with this remark from Mr. Seward :
If His M%jeBty*8 government shaU approve of the prooeedinss of the governor of
Cnra^oa, it will hecoine an important question what measure of hospitalities wUl be
due by us to the naval vessels and authorities of the Netherlands in similar cases.^
Thus, while the regulation was received with satisfaction by the
United States Government, as a restriction on Confederate vessels, an
attempt to enforce it against one of their own was looked upon asanat-
ter of grave offense. It so happened, however, that the Dutch govern-
ment had, shortly before, on the suggestion of the governor of Cura^a,
revoked the order.
No sooner had this been done than the Government of the United
States desired its restoration. Mr. Pike is instructed to lose^no time in
"calling the attention of Mr. Stratenus to the subject of the intrusion
of insurgent piratical American vessels seeking shelter in the ports of
the Netherlands and their colonies. If you cannot obtain a decree ex-
cluding them altogether, it is thought that the government wfll have no
hesitation in restoring the restrictive policy which was adopted by it
under the representatives of its foreign affairs by Baron Van Zuylen.
^ British Appendix, vol. vi, pp. 86, 87.
8 Ibid., p. 91.
» Ibid., p. 95.
OPINIONS OP SIE ALEXANDEB COCKBURN. 331
Mr. Pike was at the same time instructed to call upon the King's gov-
ernment to reconsider the subject of according to the Confederate States
the character of belligerents^ and, in the then state of affairs, to revoke
the recognition.
Both proposals were declined by the King's government. The incon-
sistency of the demand for the restoration of the restrictive order is
pointed out by M. de Sombreff, the new minister of foreign affairs :
In this regard I permit myself to observe to you that I could not anderstand how
yonr goTemment could desire the re-establishment of measnres which actually were,
and would again be, applicable to both parties, aud which were, at the time, the cause
why the Union ship Iroquois would not enter^he port of Cura^oa under the^ule of said
reatriotive measures.
It was on that occasion that the last were modified, which was brought to your notice
the aOth.of December, 1861.
It foUows, from advices which have since reached the government, tliat the new com-
mander of the Iroquois has expressed himself well satisfied to find the precedent re-
strictive measnres withdrawn, and thus to have the privilege of taking as much coal
as he might wish. These measures are idso favorable to Netherlands commerce with '
the United States, so that the interests of the two countries are in perfect accord.
If the instructions given before the month of December, 1861, were now returned to,
the ^vernment of the Netherlands might not only be taxed, with good reason, with
trifling, but would hurt its own interests, as well as those of the Union, considering
that the consequence of said instructions would be, as has been remarked in tlie com-
manioation of Baron de Znylen, dated October 29, 1861, that the vessels of war of the
United States, also, could no longer be able to sojourn in the Netherlands Kast Indian
ports more than twice twenty -four hours; nor supply themselves with coal for a run of_
more than twenty-four hours.*
A similar correspondence had, in the mean time, been going on be-
tween the United States^ Government and that of Brazil, in corra.pooaenc.
consequence of the Sumter having, on the 7th of September, *'*'' ■""'•
1861, been allowed .to enter the Brazilian port of Maranham, and to take
in a supply of coal there, notwithstanding the protest of the United
States consul. Mr. Webb, the United States minister at the court of
the Emperor, is instructed to ^'lose no time in calling the attention of
the Emperor's government to the affair."
Yon win ask explanations thereof, and, unless satisfactory explanations are rendered,
you will then inform His Msjesty's government that the shelter and snpplying of
pirates, as the Sumter is sheltered and supplied, in the ports of Brazil, are deemed an
unfriendly act by this Government, and will ask that such measures shnll be taken in
regard to the case as will make the governor of Maranham sensible of His Majesty's
displeasure, and will prevent a recurrence of such ii^uries to the United States here-
after.
I hardly need say that the proceeding at Maranham is an occurrence of great sur-
prise and deep disquiet to the United States. That we have supposed that Brazil and
every other state on the American continent have an interest second only to our own
in the stability of the American Union, the downfall of which would, in our belief, in-
evitably be followed, sooner or later, by the decline aud fall of every independent nation
on this continent, which must in that case become once more a theater for the ambition
of £aropean powers.
Such respect for the sovereignty of the United States as one great nation owes to
another is an indispensable condition of friendly relations with foreign powers in the
present emergency. You will therefore take care not, for one moment, to admit into
debate any question of claim on the part of the insurgents to any rights, whether as a
soverei^ or a belligerent.'
Mr. Webb thereupon addresses to Senhor Taqnes, the secretary of
state for foteign affairs, a dispatch of prodigious length, but which ends
with the pertinent inquiry :
Whether it is or is not the intention of the Brazilian government to permit the
piratical letters of marque and privateers of the rebels of the United States to enter
into the ports of Brazil, and there find succor and material aid — '^proviBions and coal —
to coutinue their voyages'' against the commerce of the United States f^
1 British Appendix, vol. vi; p. 99,
» Ibid., p. 4.
'Ibid., p. 10. •
332 ARBITRATION AT GENEVA.
Senhor Taqaes replied, as the Baron van Ziiylen bad done before biro,
in a most able paper, in which he reminded Mr. Webb of the naineroas
instances in which governments de facto had been admitted to the status
of belligerents, althongh their sovereign character had not been ac-
knowledged, pointing ont that the recognition of belligerency carried
with it the conseqaence that the commissioned vessels of the acknowl-
edged belligerent conld not be treated as pirates, bat must receive the
same treatment as those of the opponent.
The correspondence continned, and, owing to the exceeding fertility
of Mr. Webb's pen, assumes very formidable proportions. It led to the
regulations which I have already mentioned; which regulations the
Presidents of the provinces were 6rdered to enforce.
Mr. Seward reviews the correspondence with evident dissatisfaction:
We cannot admit, and we are not likely to admit, that anything has occarred to re-
lieve Brazil, or any other power holding treaty relations with nS| from falfiUiog the
'obligationB of friendship toward ns, which it has heretofore voluntarily assumed ; much
less can we admit that ai^ such nation has a right, by adopting a character of neotrslity,
to give hospitality, shelter, and supplies to pirates engaged in destroying our commerce,
whether they affect to be public vessels of war, or are content to sail under cover of
pretended letters of marque granted by the chief of their treasonable faction.
At the same time we are not looking out for causes of conflict with maritime powers.
We state our complaints whenever grievances are committed by them, and we ask the
redress due to ns from friendly states. Unwilling to drag such powers into our own
domestic strife, we are content with a practical respect for our flag, and we engage in
no discussions with them about the uqjnst or unfriendly manifestations with which
that practical respect is sometimes •attended. Acting on this principle, we have
brought to the notice of the Brazilian government the grievance committed agaiost
ns by the governor of Maranham. That fpvemment, instead of giving ns rednas, or
taking any measures to prevent a repetition of the grievance, has avowed and sanc-
tioned it.^
In t^e position thus assumed, the Brazilian government stands single and alone. We
cannot, with self-respect, further remonstrate nor debate. I confess that the attitude
assumed by Brazil embarrasses ns, because it tends to encourage our internal enemies.
We trust, however, that we possess the ability to maintain and preserve our govera-
ment against all enemies at home, however much aid and encouragement they may
receive from abroad.
It is not needful that yon state to the Brazilian government any part of the contents
of this dispatch except its conclusions, which are these : 1st. We stand upon the posi-
tion heretofore assumed, that the proceedings of the governor of Maranham are iotol-
erable. 2d. We cannot further debate at Rio, nor can we change the field of the dis-
cussion from that capitaJ to Washington. 3d. Conscious of our ability to protect all
our national rights, we neither importune nor menace any foreign state which may
deem it fit to do us wrong. But so last as every such case matures we determine, with
what prudence and firmness wo can, the course which the emergency reqaires.'
Mr. Webb re-echoes :
We cannot go to war with all the world ; and while circumstances compel as to
ac<^uiesoe in the conduct of England, Spain, and Holland, we cannot insist upon repa-
ration from Brazil for having adopted the same line of policy toward ns.'
The Marquis d'Abrantes having succeeded Senhor Tuques as minister
of foreign affairs, in reference to Mr. Seward's hist dispatches writes, ou
the I6th of June, to Mr. Webb :
In view of the conclusions of the last of the dispatches referred to from the Oovera-
ment of the Union, the government of His Majesty the Emperor Judges convenient to
regard at an end the discussion of the subject it treats, it being liattering to observe
that from it nothing has resulted in the least altering the relations of friendship and
good understanding between the two countries which it so much interests both to
maintain.
Hereupon Mr. Webb breaks out. -Aft^r repeating verhatim the com-
plaints set out in his letter of the 18th' of March, he contiuues:
'* British Appendix, vol. vi, p. 33.
•Ibid., p. 35.
» Ibid., p. 39.
I
OPINIONS OF SIR ALEXANDER COCKBURN. 333
Here, a8 your excellency will perceive, is not only grave canse for complaint net
forth, but a mode is pointed oat in which the friendly relations heretofore existing
between the two countries can be restored, viz, by a simple act of justice, reversing
the decision which Brazil has hastily made. If Brazil cannot meet tne reasonable ex-
pectation of the Government of the United States, then the Secretary' of Sfate, speak-
ing in the name of the President and the Oovemment, claims, at least, as a concession
to the past friendly relations of the two countries, that Brazil will no longer occupy
toward the United States a more unfriendly position than any other power ; but, by
following the example of other nations, place herself " on the same ground in relation
to the United States which is occupied by other maritime powers, and thus mitigate
the discontent " which it is made my duty to report to this Government.
But this is not all. In a dispatch from Washington, dated the 3d April, the under-
signed is instrncted to say to the government of His Imperial Majesty that the Gov-
ernment of the United States, standing ^'npon the position heretofore assumed,^' declare
'* that the proceedings of the governor of Maraoham are intolerable ; and we cannot
farther debate at Rio, nor can we change the field of the discussion from that capital
to Washington.'^
And how are these complaints, remonstrances, and friendly intimations to Brazil,
from the €k>vemment of the United States, received by the imperial government f
Why, the undersigned is called upon to apprise his Government that Brazilhas ''put an
end to this discussion upon the aforesaid subject," and is happy to perceive that not " the
least alteration will result from it in the relations of friendship and good undorstaud-
iDff between the countries.''
Slost assuredly these are not the results which the Government of the United States
promised itself when it ordered the undersigned to place before the government of
Brasil the dispatches of the 18th of March, and the very significant extract from
that of the 3d of April; and wbile it is the duty of the undersigned to convey to his
Government an answer so very different from what he anticipated, self-respect demands
that he shonld not act as a mere automaton in the matter; and an earnest desire to restore
and perpetuate the friendly relations which formerly existed between the two countries
compels him to remind jrour excellency that so desirable a result cannot be obtained
by ntterlv ignoring our complaints, by treating them as alike groundless and unmean-
ing, and by-jiesuming that nothing has occurred to interrupt the good feelings or disturb
the friendly relations between the two countries. The undersigned is grateful to a
kind Providence that in what has occurred the existing friendly relations between the
two governments have not been disturbed ; but he is not unmindful that the good feel-
ings upon which those friendly relations were based, and which is ever the best safe-
Siard for their continuance, have been trifled with by the conduct of the governor of
aruiham, and which conduct has been defended, sustained, and approved by your
immediate predecessor, speaking in the name of the Imperial Government of Brazil.
The Government of the United States, for more than a year, has been aotivelv en-
gaged in putting down the |;reate8t rebellion recorded in the history of the world. A
ci^'il war, which has called mto the field more than a million of soldiers, and which
imposed upon thevGovernment of the United States the raising and equipping of an
army of seven hundred thousand men, and a fleet of nearly five hundrod vessels to do
battle for our national existence, has called forth the energies and exhibited the re-
sources of a mighty people ; and yel, in the hour of greatest jteril, our Government has
not hesitated to tell the nations of the world which have done her wrong, when resist-
ance to such wron^ was impossible, that '* the United States will not debate with other
states a question vital to its own existence," but content herself with pointing out the
wrong done her, leaving for the present the expiation of such wrong and injury solely
to the sense of justice and magnanimity of those who once styled themselves friends.
Hence, as onr Secretary of State justly says, "acting on this principle, we have brought
to the notice of the Brazilian government the grievance committed against us by the
President of Marauham.*' That Government, instead of giving us redress, or t4ULing
measures to prevent a repetition of the grievance, has avowed and sustained it.
Hence the undersigned is instrncted to say to the Brazilian government " that while
the United States cannot ask Brazil for less than the absolute exclusion of pirates from
her harbors, yet, standing as she does alone among nations, in the extent of her un-
friendly attitude, if she wonld but place herself upon tiie same ground in relation to
the United States which is occupied by other maritime powers, it wonld mitigaie the
discontent which you are authorized to express ;" and, as if foreseeing the failure of
this appeal to the friendship and justice or Brazil, the undersigned is ordered to say, in
conclnsion, that, ''conscious of our ability to protect all onr national rights, we neither
importune nor menace any foreign state which may deem it fit to do us wrong; but
so fast as every such case matures we determine, with what prudence and firmness we
can, the course which the emergencv requires."
Inasmuch as the Government of the United States has definitively closed all further
discussion of the afi'air of the pirate Sumter, either here or at Washington, nothing of
the kind is intended in this dispatch ; its sole object being to point out to your Excel-
334 ARBITRATION AT GENEVA.
•
lency that, so far from nothing baying occnrred to distarb tbe $^ooA feeling npon Trbicli
is baaed tbe friendly relations between tbe United States and Brazil, the whole course
of yonr predecessor in relation to tbe visit of the pirate Sumter to Maranbam, and the
present attitnd^ of Brazil towards the piratical vessels belonging to tbe rebel States
and to onr national vessels, is considered by the Government of Washington untenable,
nnjnst, and *^ intolerable^'
It is qnite unnecessary for tbe undersigned to repeat bis ardent desire to draw closer
and render more permanent the relations between tbe United States and Brazil, nnd
tbe establishment by them of an ^'American policy," in contradistinction to what is tbe
recognized policy of Europe, as is being developed by interference with the internal
affairs of Mexico; and he is pained to see all his efforts in this regard, and all the wisbes
of his Government, set at naught by the perseverance of Brazil m a course declared by
tbe Government of Washington to be ntore unfriendly than that of any other forei||;ii
power; and by ignoring every fuct, sentiment^ and position taken in tbe Wasbiuf^ton
dispatches of the 18th March and 3d of April, and utterly refusing to perceive or
admit that the United States feels aggrieved by the conduct of Brazil, and'oonfidently
expects that she will not persevere in maintaining a position more unfriendly than
that of any other maritime power. Adherence by Brazil to ber present unfriendly
attitude is deprecated b^ the undersigned, not because be believes such a coone calcu-
lated to cause a disruption of the peaceful relations existing between the two conn-
tries ; there exists no such danger. The Government of the United States has demon-
Btrated to the world .that while struggling for its national existence against a gigantic
rebellion, it can submit with grace and a not unbecoming humility to tbe irritating
assanlts made upon it in the hour of adversity, whether they emanate fh>m ancient
enemies or professed friends. But nations, like individuals, while they frequently /or-
give injuries, do not always /or^et them. And it is because perseveranoe in ber pcesent
eourse by Brazil may induce the people of tbe United States to forget tbe friimdly feel-
ings npon which the existing peaceful relations between tbe two countries are based
that the policy of your predecessor is deprecated.'
The discussion on this sabject was revived in the ensaingyearby the
arrival of the Alabama, and shortly afterward the f'lorida and Georgia,
in Brazilian ports. Tne first-named ship took two American vessels
within Brazilian waters and burned them there. Notwithstanding which
her commander was allowed to go on shore at the island of Fernando
Koronha, and there to obtain supplies for the vessel and to land the
prisoners. For this the officer commanding at Fernando de Noronha
was displaced. The Florida was allowed to enter the port of Pemam-
buco, and there to refit and coal, in despite of the protest of the UDited
States consul that the Florida was a pirate and the consort of the Ala-
bama, which had just before violated the neutrality of Brazilian waters.
** Neyertheless," says Mr. Webb, in writing to the Marquis d' Abrantes
on the 21st of May, 1863—
Because ber commander represented that the ship required repairs to ber enf^ne
which could not be done within the twenty-four hours, tbe governor, in a commoDica-
tion to the pirate, now before the undersigned, dated the 9th of May, informed tbe ap- »
plicant that, inasmuch as he represented to him that a compliance with bis order to
leave in twenty-four hours will compel him to do so in a distressed condition, because
the repairs to his eogine, necessary to his safety, cannot be completed in that time, and
would be illiberal and inhuman, and expose him to danger, and Brazil to tbe conse-
quences ; and inasmuch as he, the governor, does not wish to be inhuman or iUiberal,
or endanger the salety of the pirate, or to lessen bis means of defense, or to expose him
to imminent risks, therefore, believing the representation to have been made in good
faith, and that he cannot in safety continiio bis cruise, (against American commerce
bound to Brazil,) unless given time to repair his engine, tbe said eovemor, represent-
ing tbe sovereignty of Braail, and recognizing tbe traitors in rebeUion against tbe
United States as belligerents, does accora to tbe commander of tbe pirate bearing their
flag all the time he asks for repairs, and privileges of taking in such coals and provis-
ions as may place him in a condition to continue his depredations npon tbe commerce
of a friendly ^wer. A grosser breach of neutrality has never come to the knowled^
of the undersigned.'
He adds :
At this moment tbe ports of Brazil are made harbors of refage and places of resort
and departure for three piratical vessels, avowedly designed to prey upon tbe commerce
» British Appendix, voL vi, pp. 40, 41.
« Ibid., vol. vi, p. 49.
OPINIONS OP SIR ALEXANDER CQCKBURN. 335
of the United States. The waters of Brazil are violate) with impunity in this pirati-
cal work, and after the imperial government had admitted and declared its indignation
at such violation of sovereiffnty, the gnilty party is received with hospitality and
friendship by the governor or Bahia, and instead of being captnred and imprisoned,
and his vessel detained, he is fited^ and supplied with the necessary provisions and
coal, to enable him to continue his depredations upon American commerce. The
wharves and streets of Bahia and Pemambnco have been, for weeks past, swarmed
with American sailors and passengers from merchantmen trading with Brasil which
have been captnred, and the persons on board robbed, by the pirates of the Alabama,
Florida, and Georgia, and they have been compelled, in the ports of a friendly nation,
to witness their clothing and jewelry, and even family relics, sold on |he wharves and
in the streets of Bahia and Pemambnco, by their piratical capt6re, at a tenth of their
▼alne ; while the piratical vessels and all on board were received and treated as friends,
and supplied with the necessary materials to continue their nefarious practices. The
scenes which history informs us were rife in the seventeenth century, in the islands of
the West Indies, are now being enacted in this nineteenth century in tne ports of Brazil,
and that through no fault of the imperial government— which has already done its
whole duty as rapidly as circumstances have permitted — ^but because the governors of
Peniiunbnco and Bahia, in their sympathy with piracy and pirates, have neglected
their duty to Brazil, and -brought discredit upon the civilization of the age.^
As regards the Alabama, which at this time had come into the port
of Bahia, Mr. Webb insists that she should have been seized by the
governor for her violation of Brazilian neutrality:
Your excellency will not for a moment deny that, having by your official acts, and
those of tho governor of Pemambnco, recognized the fact that this pirate has violated
the waters and outraged the sovereignty of Brazil, it is your duj;y, when opportunity
offers, to vindicate your violated sovereignty, and by his capture, if possible, remu-
nerate the injury done to American commerce within your waters. And should the
pirate come into this port when the ability of Brazil to capture and detain him admits
of no question, beyond all doubt the neglect to do so would be not only an unfriendly
act toward the United States, but would render Brazil responsible for all and every
aggremion which he might commit on American commerce after leaving this port.^
* * • * At this moment, the ports of Brazil are made harbors of refuge and places of
resort and departure for three piratical vessels, avowedly designed to prey upon the
comiuerce of the United States. The waters of Brazil are violated witn impunity in
this piratical work, and after the Imperial Government had adsaitted and declared its
indignation at sucii violation of sovereignty, the guilty party is received with hospi-
tality And firiendship by the governor of Bahia, and instead of being captured and
imprisoned, and his vessel detained, he is feted, and supplied with the necessary pro-
visions and coal, to enable him to continue his depredations upon American commerce.^
Tbe Marquis d'Abrantes answers, as to the non-seizure of the Ala-
bama, that the governor of Bahia had not sufficient information to war-
rant him in taking such a measure ; as to the Florida and Georgia, by
going over the same topics as his predecessor had done and with equal
ability.
Tbe government of Brazil did not seize the Alabama ; but it did ex-
clude that vessel from its ports for the future, for having made prizes in
Brazilian waters, and applied the same rule to the Tuscaloosa as being a
tender of the delinquent vessel.
It was immediately aft^r this troublesome correspondence that the
Imperial Government promulgated the rules contained in the circular ^f
June 23, 1863, (set out in the 7th volume of American Documents, p.
110,) which, in point of stringency, far e:^eed what any other nation had
ever thought it necessary to enact. The United States had never adopted
any such rules, nor can it for a moment be said that Great Britain ought
to be bound by them.
t This is the country of which, in the argument of the United States it
is stated, 1 presume in compliment to our distinguished Brazillian col-
. leagae :
In the American Caseiand the documents to which it refers, there is sufficient indica-
^ British Appendix, vol. vi., p. 51.
« Ihid., p. 50.
336 ARBITRATION AT GENEVA.
tion of the loyaltj' and efficiency, with which the Brazilian government maintained its
sovereignty against the aggressive efforts of the confederates.^
A similar question arose with the Spanish goTernment on the entry of
corr e.ponde>ce the Sumtcr into Cadiz, with a requisition to have repairs done
with Spain. ^jjQ to coal. After difficulties raised by the United States
Representatives, permission was given, though the repairs were limited to
what was absolutely necessary.*
The same question arose with the French government when the
Sumter put into St. Pierre, in tbe Island of Martinque, in No-
wuh Fr7!S'STe«. vcmber, 1861, and was ])ermitted by the governor to coal
"*"** which permission was afterward approved of by the French
government.'
It arose in a still more striking form when the Florida put into Brest
to repair and coal ; as we shall see more fully hereafter when I come to
the case of that vessel. Mr. Dayton, the United States minister at the
court of France, objected to her being received or being allowed to have
repairs done to her machinery, but his protest is in the more moderate
tone of a statesman and a man of the world ; we hear no more about '^pi-
rates;'' his objection is that, being possessed of sailing power, the vessel
did not require the aid of steam — ^an argument which was, however, over-
ruled by the imperial council.^
»w.e« "^^^^ question was raised between the United States and
whh°BmiIb BorJi! Her Majesty's government on the arrival of the Sumter, on
the 30th July, 1861, at Trinidad, where she was allowed to
coal and to remain six days in port. This was, in due course, complained
of to Her Majesty's government. Mr. Seward declaring that "the arma-
ment, the insurgent flag, and the spurious commission should have told
the governor, as they sufficiently prove to Her Majesty's government,
tbat the Sumter is and can be nothing else than a piratical vessel"' Of
course this argument did not prevail with Her Majesty's government
any more than it did with those of the Netherlands, France, or Brazil.
It was obvious that the confederates having once been acknowledged
as belligerents, the admission of their ships of war to the neutral ports
and harbors followed as the necessary consequence.
The objection to the reception of these vessels took a somewhat differ-
ent and more telling form in the case of the confederate ship the Nash-
ville, which, having left the confederate port of Charleston, had been
allowed to coal at Bermuda on her voyage to England.
On that voyage the Nashville committed one of those acts which
stained this hateful warfare with eternal opprobrium — that of setting
Are to a harmless trading- vessel and making her crew prisoners of war.
This proceeding was m^e a ground by Mr. Adams, on the arrival of
the Nashyille, for claiming that the vessel should not be received into
a British port. In terms of just and hone^ indignation he writes to
Earl Bussell :
The act of wilfully haxning a private merchant^ship while parsning its way quietly
to its destinatioa in its own country ftems in itself little to harmonize with the general
sentiment among civilized and commercial nations, even when it is committed under
the authority of a recognized helligerent ; hut when voluntarily undertaken by indi-
viduals not vested with the powers generally acknowledged to he necessary to Jnstifr
aggressive warfare, it approximates too closely within the definition of piracy to receive
the smallest countenance from any Christian people. The undersigned cannot permit
1 Page 67. ^
8 British Appendix, vol. vi, pp. 117-119.
3 See Britisn Case, p. 17, and letter of British Consol Lawless to Earl Bossell, British
Appendix, vol. i, p. 257.
^ British Appendix, vol. vi, pp. 132, 133.
^ United States Documents, vvl. vi, p. 193.
OPIXIONS OF SIR ALEXANDER COCKBURN. 337
himself to doubt that Her Majesty's government, which has voluntarily renounced the
authority to wage private war at Hea, would not fail to visit with its utmost iudiji^iiatiou
any attempts to seek shelter under its jurisdiction from the consequences of indulging
a purely partisan malice in unauthorized acts of violence on the ocean. ^
Mr. Morse, the United States consul at London, only exxiressed the
public feeling when he wrote to Mr. Seward :
The leading event of the current week has been the appearance of the corsair Nnsh-
rille, from Charleston, in European waters, and her wanton and malicious destruction
of an American ship by burning about seventy-five miles west of Cape Clear, oft* the
{iontbern coast of Ireland, and her bold entrance into a British port for coal and repairs
the day following the committal of the barbarous act. It has, as a matter of course,
createtl much comment, and no little excitement here.
So far as I can learn and judge, the public voice hero is very strong and out^spoken
in condemning and denouncing the act as malicious and piratical. It has taken the
English people by surprise, and is doing much to enlighten them as to the character of
the enemy with whom we are dealing.'^
Bnt such an act could not be held to be sufficient ground of exclusion.
However revolting such a system of w^arfare, it was still within the
stern principle of international law, relative to war, which justifies both
the seizure and the destruction of enemy's ships and goods at sea, on
the principle that whatever tends to impoverish the enemy is allowable.
The practice had been' sanctioned by the conduct of the United States
themselves, in their last war with Great Britain.
When the civil war was over, it occurred to the United States Gov-
ernment that, though Captain Semmes had been admitted to i>arol as
a prisoner of war, and could not therefore be jjroceeded against crimi-
nally under the law relating to treason, he might, nevertheless, be made
amenable to the penal law for the destruction of ships and cargoes be-
longing to citizens of the United States. But the idea was abandoned,
and Mr. John A. BoUes, Solicitor to the Navy Department of the United
States, in an article bearing his name, in the July number of the " At-
lantic Monthly,"^ under the title of "Why Semmes, of the Alabama,
was not tried," has fully explained the reasons, and among them has
made us ac^iuaiuted with the course pursued by the United States Gov-
ernment in the war with England in 1812 and 1813. The question,
whether Semmes should be prosecuted or not, seems to have been re-
lerred by the President to Mr. BoUes and the law-officer of the Depart-
ment, who apl>ear to have entered upon and conducted the inquiry with
a discrimination, ability, and sense of justice which do them infinite
honor. In the article referred to Mr. Bolles, in the first place, observes
that—
By cstahlishing a blockade of confederate ports, our Government had recognized the
confederates as belligerents, if not as a belligerent State, and ha<l thus confessed that
confederate officers and men, military or naval, could not bo treated as pirates or gueril-
las, 80 long as they obeyed the laws of war ; the same recognition was made when car-
tels for exchange of prisoners were established between the Federal and confederate
authorities ; and, above all, when the Federal Executive, after the courts had declared
confederate privateersmen to be pirates, had deliberately set aside those judgments,
and admitted the captured and condemned officers and men of tlie Savannah and the
Jeff Davis, to exchange as prisoners of war/
' British Appendix, vol. ii, p. 92,
'United States Documents, vol. ii, p. 549.
^ Page 89.
* "The reluctance with which this recognition was granted does not affect its validity.
After having refused, again and again, Fresident Davis's offers of exchange, the Fed-
eral Executive, being at last notified that fourteen Union prisoners— six colonels, two
lientenant-oolonels, three majors, and three captains — had been shut up in felons' cells,
to be hung whenever the confederate privateers were executed, concluded to regard
those 'pirates' as lawful belligerents entitled to exchange.''
22 B
338 ARBITRATION AT GENEVA.
This premised, Mr. Bolles writes:
Without consulting publicist or jurisconsult, it was easily possible to see and show
that we. as a Goyernment, could not afford to prosecute and punish as a criminal any
naval officer for capturing and destroying the enemy's trading- vessels, as fast as possi-
ble, not only without any attempt to send them iu for a(\jadication, but with a deter-
mined purpose and policy not to do so.
Jhis conclusion was the result of a careful study of our own naval history, and of a
thoughtful examination of future possibilities in the event of war between the
United States and some great commercial nation.
I will not dwell upon this last division of the topic, but content myself with a refer-
ence to that pa«t theory and practice of our naval warfare which rendered it impossi-
ble to punish Semnies for having learned and practiced so successfully the lesson
taught by our own instruction and example iu the Revolutionary War, when we were
rebels, and in the last war (1812) with Great Britain.
The earlier records are imperfect ; but enough can be gathered from our naval his-
torian. Cooper, to show that many of the vessels captured in the war of the revolo-
tion were destroyed at sea.
Of the history and policy of the later period we have abundant proofs. Not less
than seventy-four British merchantmen were captured, and destroyed as soon as cap-
tured, under express instructions from the Navy Department, and in pursuance of a
deliberate purpose and plan, without any attempt or intent to send or bring tfaem Id
an prizes for adjudication. The orders or the Department upon this sublect arennnjer-
ous, emphatic, and carefully prepared. They deserve to be studied and remembered:
and they effectually silence all American right or disposition to complain of Semmes
for having imitated our example in obedience to similar orders from the secretary of
the confederate navy.
The instructions to which I refer were addressed to Captains David Porter and O.H.
Perry, each in command of a squadron ; to Captain Charles Stewart, of the CoDstitu-
tion, twice ; to Captain Charles Morris, of the Uongress ; Commandant Lewis WarriDg-
ton, of the Peacock ; Commandant Johnstone Blakely, of the Wasp ; Master Com-
mandant Joseph Bainbridge, of the Frolic; Master Commandant George Parker, of the
Siren ; Master Commandant John O. Creighton, of the Rattlesnake; Lieutenant Will-
iam H. Allen, of the Argus ; Lieutenant James Renshaw, of the Enterprise ; and
Master Ridgely, of the Erie.
Extracts from the instructions of the Department, which led to these immediate
burnings of captured vessels, will best show the precise purpose and deliberate policy
of the Government. I will, therefore, quote brief passages from some five or sixdifler-
eut orders as samples of all :
*'The great object,'' says one of them, "is the destruction of the commerce of the
> enemy, and the bringing into port the prisoners, in order to exchange against onr nn-
fortunate couutrymen who may fall into his hands.'' " You will, therefore, man no
prize unless the YAlue, place of capture, and other favorable circumstances, shall render
safe arrival morally certain." " You will not agree to the ransoming of any prize."
*' Grant no cartel nor liberate any prisoners excex>t under circumstances of extreme and
unavoidable necessity."
In another it is said: ^'You will, therefore, unless in some extraordinary cases that
shall clearly warrant an exception, destroy all you capture, and, by thus retaining your
crew and continuing your cruise, your services may be enhanced tenfold.*'
"I have it in command from the President strictly to prohibit the giving or accept-
ing, directly or indirectly, a challenge to combat ship to ship."
Again : *' Your own sound judgment and observation will sufficiently demonstrate ifi
you now extremely precarious and injurious is the attempt to send in a prize, unle:^*^
taken very near a friendly port and under the most favorable circumstances. * ' *
Policy, interest, and duty combine to dictate the destruction of all captures, with the
above exceptions."
Another: "The commerce of the enemy is the most vulnerable point of the enemr
we can attack, and its destruction the main object: and to this end all your efforts
should be directed. Therefore, unless your prizes should be very valuable and near a
friendly port it will be imprudent and worse than useless to attempt to send them in:
the chances of recapture are excessively great ; the crew, the safety of the ship under
your command, would be diminished and endangered, as well as your own fame and
the national honor, by hazarding a battle after the reduction of your offieers and cren*
by manning prizes. In every point of view, then, it will be proper to destroy what
;i-ou capture, except valuable and compact articles, that may be transshipped* Thb
sjRtem gives to one ship the force of many."
Another order sa}*s that '^a single cruiser, if ever so successful, can man bnta fev'
prizes, and every prize is a serious diminution of her force; but a single cruiser de-
stroying every captured vessel has the capacityof continuing, in full vigor, her deatruc-
tive power, so long as her provisions and stores can be replenished either from friendly
OPINIONS OF SIR ALEXAKDBB COCKBURN. 339
ports or from the vessels captared* • • • Thus has a single cniiser, upou
the datructite plaHy the power, perhaps, of tvrenty acting upou pecuniary views alone;
* * * and thus may the employment of our small force in some degree com-
pensate for the great inequality [of our force] compared with that of the enemy/'
Such were the policy and the orders of President Mtidison and of the Secretary of the
Navy in 1812, 1813, 1814; and such, beyoud question, would be the plan and the in-
Btructions of any administratiou under the circumsti^uces.^
In conclusion Mr. Bolles says :
It is evident that after it had been, as it soon was, resolved that neither treason nor
piracy should be charged against Semmes before a military or naval tribunal, and that
ui» methods of capturing, '* plundering/' and destroying vessels should not be treated
as offenses against public law aud duty, but that he should be dealt with as a bellig-
erent naval olHcer, bound to obey the laws of war and entitled to their protection, it
was uecdieAs to inquire where or by whom the Alabama was built, manned, armed, or
commissioned, or whether a government without an open port can legitimately own or
employ a naval force. These inquiries, however interesting or impoilant they might
be in other connections, were of no sort of interest or importance as elements of a trial
for violutiug the laws of war in the conduct of a cruiser subject to those laws and pro-
tected by them.
In this way the field and the duty of inqniry were reduced to the two subjects of
cruelty to prisoners and pertidy toward Captain Winslow and the power he repre-
Bented.
The two questions thus left are dealt with b^^ Mr. 3o11es in the follow-
ing number of the same review, in a most interesting paper, the result
beinp: wholly to exculpate Semmes of every charge of ill treatment or
cruelty to prisoners, to acquit him of any charge of perfidy during the
engagement with the Kearsarge, but to maintain that he was guilty
of a violation of military honor in not surrendering himself as a prisoner
of war after being taken off by the Deerhound.
The British government having thus decided on acknowledging the
Confederate States as a belligerent power, and, as a ueces- Re,„ution. n
sary consequence, on the admission of confederate ships of J""**. »»»•
war into British ports on the same footing as those of the United States,
it only remains to be seen whether the same treatment was afforded to
both which impartial neutrality would require.
On the 1st of June, 1861, Her Majesty's order was issued p'rohibiting,
as has not been unusual in the case of modern maritime wars, and has
been general with reference to privateers, the introduction of prizes by
the ships of either belligei*ent into British ports.^ Whatever may, gen-
erally speaking, be the motive of such a regulation, it was, in the pres-
ent instance, obviously a measure the effect of which was to place the
confederate vessels in a position of considerable disadvantage, seeing
that, their own ports being strictly blockaded, they were thus left with-
out any port into which to U\ke their prizes. Accordingly, as reported
in a dispatch from Lord Lyons to Earl Kussell, of the 17th Jane, 1861,
it was hailed by Mr. Seward as 'Mikely to prove a death-blow to south-
ern privateering.'' As it was clearly at the discretion of Her Majesty's
government to adopt this regulation or not, it must be admitted that,
thus far, there was no manifestation of the partiality by which that
government has been said to have been animated.
In January, 1862, after the war had been going on for some months,
circumstances arose which made further regulations as to R^^,,ti.,B, or n
the admission of the armed vessels of the two belligerents •»""">' »«»•
into British ports necessary. Instructions, bearing date the 31st Jan-
uary, 1862, were accordingly issued by the Government.*-* One of these
bad reference to the ports of the Bahamas in particular, the others to
the ports and waters of Her Majesty's dominions in general.
» Page 97. ^
< British Append Ix, vol. iii, p. 18.
340 ARBITRATION AT GENEVA.
The following state of tbinprs had arisen at Nassau. As has been so
A.to\n.«u. often repeated, the port of Nassau had been made the en-
trepot for the blockade-running trade, the natural consequence of wbich
had been that the waters of the colony were watched by, and their im-
mediate vicinity made the cruising-grouud of. Federal ships.
In October, 1861, Mr. Adams forwarded to Lord Russell an inter-
cepted letter from a Mr. Baldwin, whom he stated to be in the service
of the insurgents, addressed to a Mr. Adderley, of Nassau, from which
he said that it appeared that Nassau had been made, to some extent,
an entrepot for the transmission of contraband of war from Great Brit-
ain to the blockaded ports.^ The matter was referred by Lord RaSvSell
to the colonial office, and by that Department to the governor of the
colony, and the latter forwarded, in reply, on the 20ih November, 18G1,
a report from the receiver-general at Nassau, stating that no warlike
stores had been received at that port either from the United Kingdom
or elsewhere, nor had any munitions of w^ar been shipped from Nassau
to the Confederate States.^ This report, received by Lord Russell on
the 31st of December, was communicated to Mr. Adams on the 8th of
January, 1862.^
Upon this the Case of the United States makes the following remark:
The United States with confidence assert, in view of what has been already shown,
that, had Earl RusseU seriously inquired into the complaints of Mr. Adams, a state of
facts would have beeu disclosed eutirely at variance with this report — one which
would have impelled Her Majesty^s government to snppress what was going on at
Nassau. The foregoing facts were all within the reach of Her Majesty's government,
although at that time not within the reach of the government of the United St^ites.
The fauure to discover them after Mr. Adams had called attention to them, was a neg-
lect of the diligence in the preservation of its neutrality, which was '*due" from Great
Britain to the United States; and it taints all the subsequent conduct of Great Britain
toward the United States during the struggle.^
Further on. Lord Russell's communication is described a« the "an-
nouncement of an imaginary condition of affairs:^* thus making it ap-
pear that, at the date of Lord Russell's communication, the report re-
ceived from Nassau and transmitted by him was an unfaithful one;
whereas the fact was that, at the date of the report, no vessel laden
with munitions of war had arrived at Nassau.
It was not till the 8th of December that a vessel, the Gladiator, with
a cargo of atms, suspected of being intended for the Confederate States,
arrived at Nassau. The United States consul at once sent a message
to the commander of the United States naval forces at Key West to
request the presence of a cruiser.^ On the 13th of December he reports
the *'mo^t opportune" arrival of the United States war-steamer Flam-
beau from New York, and adds that her commander *' is watching in-
tently the movements of the rebel steamers."^ From a letter addressed
by the governor to the British naval oflScer on the station it appears
that the Flambeau kept her steam up ready for instant movement, caus-
ing considerable alarm among the shipping in the port ; and that a
rumor prevailed that her commander meant to cut out the Gladiator,
or, at all events, to seize that vessel immediately on her leaving.*
The dispatches reporting this state of affairs were received in Lon-
1 United States Documents, vol. i, p. 520.
s British Appendix, vol. v, p. 26.
3 United States Docmnents, vol. vi, p. 57.
* Case of the United States, p. 232.
sibid., p.234.
6 United States DocuznentSi vol. vi, p. 44.
7 Ibid., p. 47.
B British Appendix, yoL y, p. 27.
OPINIONS OF SIR ALEXANDER COCKBURN. 341
don on tbe 16th of Jan nary, and the attention of the British govern-
ment was necessarily called to the peculiar position of the Bahama
Archipelago. On the one hand, it was obvious that it would form a
convenient place of resort for confederate privateers; while, on the
other, it seemed likely that its ports and waters wouhl be used by the
United States war- vessels for the purpose of watching and ijursuing
confederate vessels or others engaged in trade with the blockaded ports,
so that collisions in the waters of the colony or in their immediate
neighborhood would be almost certain to result. To prevent this it was
necessary to provide some special regulation.
About the same time the Nashville confederate war-steamer having
put into the port of Southampton for repairs and coal, the United
States war-steamer Tuscarora, which had coaled at the same port, was
found to be closely watching her, for the avowed i)urpose of intercepting
and seizing her ou her again putting to sea. By keeping his steam up,
and keeping slipa on his cable, the commander of the Tuscarora was
virtually keejung the Nashville blockaded, thus plainly making the
waters of the Solent the base of naval operations.^
Upon this M. Calvo, in the second volume of his well-known work,
"Le droit international," after stating the facts relsitive to the two
vessels, says : '* La corvette f(6d<3rale la Tuscarora entra dans le nieme
port pour surveiller sou ennemi, et I'attaquer des qu'il reprendrait la
uier. Devantcette attitude hostile les autorites locales intervinrent, et
la Tuscarora, abaudonnant son post d'observation sans toutefois renoncer
k ses projets, resta pres d'uu mois dans les eaux anglaises au mepris
des regies les moins contest6es du droit international.''*
In the preceding November, after the reception of the Sumter at
Trinidad, Mr. Seward had, through Lord Lyons, pressed upon the Brit-
ish g.>vernment the propriety of adopting the rule laid down, as
he said, by the other powers of Europe, not to allow privateers to
remain for more than twenty- four hours in their ports.^
Such a rule, relating exclusively to privateers, was not one which Her
Majesty^s government were at all called upon to apply to commissioned
ships of war such as the Sumter any moiT) than the other maritime
powers had done — Mr. Seward being, in this respect, altogether mis-
taken, as was shown by the readiness with which the other maritime
powers received the confederate vessels of war into their ports and
allowed them to stay there. Still, when, to prevent the possibility
of hostile collisions in their own ports, the Britis]^ government found it
expedient to apply this rule to vessels of war indiscriminately, they
might be assured that in doing so they would give cause of satisfaction
rather than of complaint to the United States Government.
The instructions issued were to the following effect : 1. No ship of
war or privateer of either belligerent was to bo permitted to enter any
port, roadstead, or water in the Bahamas except by special leave of the
lieutenant-governor, or iu case of stress of weather ; and in case such
permission should be given, the vessel was, nevertheless, to be required
to go to sea as soon as possible, and with no supplies except such as
might be necessary for immediate use. 2. No ship of war or privateer
of either belligerent was to be permitted to use British ports or waters
as a station or place of resort for any warlike purpose, or for the pur-
pose of obtaining any facilities of warlike equipment. 3. Such ships
or privateers entering British waters were to be required to depart
*^^— ■ ^ ■ .^^-^^.^— ^^^M^M^ ■ ll.l.... ■,»■■■■ —-., ■■■■ ■ 111^ ■_llll I ^
^ British Appendix, vol ii, p. 120.
2 Vol. ii, p. 423.
3 Uuited otates Docnments, vol. i, p. 34*2.
342 ARBITRATION AT GENEVA.
within twenty-four honrs after entrance, except in case of stress
of weather, or requiring provisions or things for the crew or re-
pairs ; in which cases they were to go to sea as soon as possible after
the expiration of the twenty-four hours, t<'iking only the supplies neces-
sary for immediate use; the^- were not to remain in port more than
twenty-four honrs after the completiou of necessary repairs, 4. Sup
plies to such ships or privateers were to be limited to what might be
necessary for the subsistence of the crew, and to sufficient coal to take
the vessel to the nearest port of its own country, or to some nearer
destination; and a vessel that had been supplied with coal in British
waters could not be again supplied with it within British jurisdiction
until after the expiration of three months from the date of the last
supply taken from a British port.
With reference to the regulation concerning Nassau, the case of the
United States has the following remark :
An order more Jinfriendljr to the United States, more directly in the interest of the
inanrgents, could not bave been made even if founded upon Heyli^er's friendly intima-
tions to the colonial authorities. Under the construction pracrically put upon it, tbe
vessels of war of the United States were excluded from this harbor for any pnrpoec,
«?hile it was open for free ingress and egress to vessels of the insurgents, purcbued
or built and owned by the authorities' at Richmond, bringing their cotton to be
transshipped in British l)ott.oms to Fraser, Trenholm &, Co., in Liverpool, and taking
on boara the cargoes of arms and munitions of war which have been dispatched
thither fnnu Liverpool.^
And in another place it is observed :
The instructions of January 31, 1662, forbade both belligerents alike to enter tbe
port of Nassau, except by permission of the governer, or in stress of weather. That per-
mission was lavishly given to every insurgent cruiser, but was granted chnrlisbly, if
at all, to the vessels of the United States.^
How devoid of all foundation are these complaints will appear from
the facts stated in the British Counter Case, where it is observed :
It will perhaps be a matter of some little surprise to the tribunal to learn tbat,
whereas on two occasions only did vessels visit the i>ort of Nassau as confederate cruis-
ers, there are no less than thirty-four visits of United States ships of war to the Babsma
Islands recorded during the time that the regulation was in force. On four occasiaDB,
at least, vessels of the United States exceeded the twenty-four hours' limit, and took
in coal by permission ; one of them also received permission to repair ; several were
engaged in pursuit of vessels suspected of being blockade-runners, and did not iu every
instance relinquish the chuse within British limits. Two prizes appear, indeed, to
have been captui'ed by them, one within a mile of the shore, the other almost in port'
The tabular statement of visits of United States vessels to the Bahamas
during the civil war, which is printed in the British Appendix, ahund-
aiitly bears out the answer thus given.^
The general regulations applicable to all Her Majesty's ports, which,
as we have seen, were in conformity with the wishes of the United
States Government, though not intended by the British government to
have any operation more favorable to one belligerent than the other,
nevertheless could not fail to prove very prejudicial to the confederates,
the strict blockade of whose ports left their shipsof war without any
ports to which they could resort for repairs or supplies, or into which
they could take their prizes. The rule forbidding them a greater sup-
ply of coal than would suflftce to take them to their nearest port, and
prohibiting also a renewal of the supply within three months, was ob-
viously calculated to place them at the greatest possible disadvantage.
Compelled, from having no ports of their own, to keep the sea, their
means of doing so were necessarily lessened, and the regulation, in itself
1 Page "itM,
2 Page 316.
'Pages 109, 110.
* British Appendix, vol. t, p. 224.
OPINIONS OF SIR ALEXANDER COCKBURN. 343
•
SO unfavorable to the confederate vessels, was rendered still more so by .
the strict construction pat on it by Her Majesty's government, by whom
the governors of the different colonies were instructed that, in case of
any special application for leave to coal at a British port within the
three months, if it appeared that any part of the former supply had
been consumed otherwise than in gaining the nearest port, not even
stress of weather should form* a ground of exception.^ As no confed-
erate vessel could seek its nearest port, this was practically to prevent
the possibility of a renewed supply under any circumstances within
the three months.
The attempts on the part of the United States to show that any favor
was extended to confederate cruisers which was withheld from their
own vessels, appear to me signally to fail.
The only specific instances in which any complaint has been made
(and if there had been any others we may be quite sure we should have
beard of them) are the cases of the Keystone 8tate, Quaker City, and the
Dacotah. As to the first two, the answer given in the British Counter
Case, en the authority of a letter from the governor of Bermuda to the
secretary of state for the colonies, and which is further borne out by
the letters of the commanding officers of the vessels themselves, is as
follows :
An allasion is made in a foot-note at page 324 of the Case of the United States, to the
fdilare of the United States vessels Keystone State and Qnaker City to ohtain coal at
Bermada in December, 1861. At that time there was no restriction on the coaling pf
belligerent vessels. All that happened was, that the British admiral declined to sup-
ply the two vessels mentioned from the government stores, not having a 8u£Bcient
stock for his own vessels. A similar answer had, in the foregoing October, been re-
turned to the commander of the Nashville, who had supplied himself from private
sources, but this, on account either of the scarcity or the high price of coal in the
colony, the United States officers did not do.^
As regards the Dacotah, which was allowed to supply herself with
coal at Nassau, but only on an engagement from her commander that
his vessel should not, within ten days after leaving the port, be found
cruising within five miles of any of the Bahama Islands, Governor Bay-
ley, in a letter to the secretary of state for the colonies, of the 2d May,
1863, states :
I have no distinct recollection of the special reasons which induced me to impose
the restrictions mentioned by the consul in the Dacotah's coaling ; I can only suppose
that I did this in coifsequence of the pertinacity with which Federal vessels about
that time resorted to the harbor on pretense of coaling, but really with the object of
watching the arrival and departure of English merchant-vessels, supposed to be
freighted with cargoes for the southern ports. Had not such prohibitioi^ been issued,
the harbor'would have become a mere convenience for Federal men-of-war running in
and oat to intercept British shipping. And that such conditions as I thought it my
duty to impose were tempered by a proper feeling of courtesy and humanity wiU, I
think, be made evident by the accompanying letters from the American consul on the
subject of the Federal man-of-war, the R. Cuyler, and the memoranda of my replies
indorsed upon them by myself.
On the whole,! am satisfied that I have acted with perfect impartiality in all my
dealings with Federal and confederate men-of-war. But I am not surprised that my
conduct should have been misrepresented by so hot-headed a partisan as the late
American consnl, Mr. Whiting, whose ingenuity in misconstruction is weU illustrated
by his reply to my letter of the 29th of September, of both of which papers I inclose
conies, with the indorsation of the draught of my replies to his last communication.
1 think that these inclosnres will be sufficient to prove that, in my demeanor to the
Federal men-of-war, I have generally preserved an attitude of fairness and impar-
tiality. And that if at any time I have appeared to assume an unfriendly or iuhospit-
* British Appendix, vol. iii, p. 10.
^ British Counter-Case, pp. 115, 116 ; British Appendix, vol. v, p. 7 ; United States
Documents, vol. vi, p. 52.
^
344 ARBITRATION AT GENEVA.
able mien, the char^re can be fall}'' explained and defended by my desire to maintain
the security of a British possession and the rights of British subjects. ^
Auotlier subject of complaint is that partiality, inconsistent with
All .i 1 pariuiity ncutrality, was exhibited toward confederate vessels by
as to coaling. reason that these, as in the case of the Sumter, were per-
mitt^xl to coal, while liberty to form a depot of coal at Bermuda, for
the supply of their ships of war, was denied to the United States. I
"cannot suppose that emy member of this tribunal could be misled by sncU
a contention. It is obvious that to allow one belligerent to have a sup-
ply always stored up and ready, and to leave the other to take his
chance of the public market, are things essentially different, and that,
far from the refusal of such an advantage to the United States being a
violation of neutrality, the concession would have been so in the oppo-
site direction. Moreover, such an act involves a forgetfulness of one of
the elementary principles of international law. A neutral is only justi-
fied in allowing to a belligerent vessel the use of his ports and access to
his shores to obtain the things which the belligerent may lawfully pro-
cure. He has no right to allow the belligerent the use of his territory
on shore for belligerent purposes, which the permission to form a depot
would necessarily involve.
The practical answer to all these complaints is to be found in the
striking facts, stated in the British Counter-Case, with reference to the
number of visits to British ports b^^ the ships of war of the two bellig-
erents, and to the quantity of coal received by them respectively. TLe
statement in question is as follows :
Durin}( the course of the civil war, ten confederate cruisers visited British ports-
The total nnmbcr of such visits was twenty-five, eleven of which were made for the
purpose of effecting repairs. Coal was taken in at sixteen of these visits, and ou six-
teen occasions the limit of stay fixed by the regulations was exceeded. In on« of
these cases, however, the excess was no more than two hours, and in another, the de-
lay was enforced in order to allow twenty-four hours to elapse between the departure
of a United States merchant- vessel and that of the confederate cruiser. On the other
hand, the returns which have been procured of visits of United States vessels of \«B.t
to ports of Great Britain and the colonies, though necessarily imperfect, show au ag-
gregate total of 228 such visits. On thirteen of these repairs were efiected ; ou forty-
hve occasions supplies of coal were obtained ; and the twenty-four hours' limit uf
stay was forty -four times exceeded. The total amount of coal obtained by coafeii-
erate cruisers in British port« during the whole course of the civil war, though it can-
not be ascertained with accuracy, may be estimated to have amounted to alK)ut 2,^)
tons. Tho aggregate amount similarly supplied to vessels of the United States cannot
be estimated, from the want of data as to the supplies in many cases, but those cases
alone in which the quantities are recorded, show a total of over five thousand tons; and
this, notwithstanding the United States navy had free access to their own coaling de-
pots, often close at hand. In one case a vessel of war of the United States, the Van-
derbilt, alone received 2,000 tons of coal at different British ports within the space of
less than two months, being more than two-thirds of the whole amount obtained from
first to last by confederate vessels.^
The second head of complaint has assumed a more sensational and
Supplier of nrmi eftectlve foFm, in representing Great Britain as " the arse-
obiamed frum Great ^^j^ ^^^ Davy-yard, and the treasury of the insurgents."
Again and again has this highly colored representation been paraded.
Let us see what, when stripped of rhetorical flourish, it really amounts to.
Having determined to support their effort to establish their indepen-
dence by war, the confederates of course required arms and munitions of
war. Both were to be had in Great Britain in abundance. The commercial
relations of the Southern States had been principally with Great
Britain. It was natural that in Great Britain that they should seek the
arms which were so essentially necessary to them. But arms and ran-
^British Appendix, vol. 1, p. 79.
s I'age 118.
OPINIONS OF SIR ALEXANDER COCKBURN. 345
iiitions of war are not to be had for iiotbing. It was necessary, there-
fore, that arrangements should be made for the deposit of funds in Eng-
land to pay for the articles bought there. To carry on these operations
—10 purchase the articles required, to pay for them, to ship them —
agents were, of course, necessary. Agents were accordingly estab-
hshed in England and provided with the necessary funds. Thus far, no
one can say that there was anything contrary to the law of nations, or
to the municipal law, or to obligations morally incumbent on a neutral
fjovernment or a neutral people. As Jefferson said more than three-
quarters of a century ago :
Our citizeD8 have been always free to make, veiul, and export arms. It is the con-
8tant occupatiim and livelihood of some of them. To suppress their caUin^cSf the only
means perhaps of their subsistence, because a war exists in foreign and distant coun-
tries, in which we have no concern, would scarcely bo expected. It would be hard in
principle, and impossible in practice. The law of nations, therefore, respecting the
rij^hts of those at petice, does not require from them such an internal derangement iu
their occupations. It is satisfied with the external penalty pronounced in the Presi-
dent's proclamation — th<'it of confiscation of such portion of these arms as shall, fall
into the hands of any of the belligerent powers on their way to the ports of their ene-
mies. To this penalty our citizens are warned that they will be abandoned, and that
even private contraventions may work no inequality between the parties at war, the
benefit of them will be left equally free and open to all.
Substitute Her Majesty's proclamation and Her Majesty's subjects for
the American phraseology, and the cases are identically the same.
But had the United States no arsenal in Great Britain ? As we have
seen, arms and munitions of war were purchased by the United States
iu Great Britain to tlie amount of £2,000,000 sterling. Several agents,
Colonel Thomas, Colonel Schuyler, Mr. J. R. Schuyler, Mr. Tomes, were
sent over to order and select the arms, and forward them to the United
States.
It appears from the British Counter Case, and the documents therein
referred to, that —
Colonel Thonnis, of the United States Army, was in England during the war, and
caaie over to England to superintend the purchases of military stores. Colonel G. L.
Schuyler was, in July, 1861, appointed by the President of the United States "a duly
authorized agent to purchase arms iu Europe for the War Department.'' He received
his instmctions from the Secretary of War, with a memorandum from General J. W.
Eipley, of the Orduance Department at Washington, specifying the arms to be purchased,
viz, 100,000 rifle muskets with biiyonets, 10,000 cavalry carbines, 10,000 revolvers, and
20,000 sabers. The financial arrangements for these purchases were to be made by the
Secretary to the Treasury with Messrs. Baring, financial agents for the United States
in London, and a credit of $2,000,000 was appropriated for the purpose.
In the summer or autumn of 1861, Mr. J. B. Schuyler and Mr. Tomes, of the firm of
Schuyler, Hartley & Graham, of New York, visited Birmingham, and, after commu-
nicating with the principal rifle, bayonet, and sword manufacturers there, gave orders
for as many of those articles as their respective manufactories were capable of supply-
ing, the goods to be paid for on delivery to them at a place to be subsequently named,
or on shipment. Messrs. Schuyler and Tomes made no concealment of the fact that
these arms were destined for the American Governn>ent, and they intimated their
intention of continuing unlimited orders for a period of two years. They took ware-
houses in Birmingham for the receipt of arms when completed, and shipped them
through the agency of Messrs. Baring Brothers, and Messrs. Brown, Shipley & Co., of
Liverpool. It appears from the returns ma^le to Congress of arms purchased by the
United States War Department up to December, 1):J62, that 8,650 rifles and 232 revolvers
of English manufacture had at that time been supplied by Messrs.^Schuyler, Hartley
& Graham ; but Mr. Schuyler is also believed to have acted as ag^nt for the purchase
of arms for the State of New York. Messrs. Schuyler and Tomes were soon followed
to Birmingham, by Mr. Lockwood, of New York, who had entered into a contract
for the snpply of rifles, bayonets, and swords to the War Department at Washington.
He alHO gave unlimited onlers for such articles, acting, however, to some extent, in
concert with Messrs. Schuyler and Tomes, and shipping the goods through the agency
of the same bouses at Liverpool. The etfeot of these orders was to raise the prices iu
the Birmingham gun trade to the extent of 20 per cent.; indeed, the price of rifles
rose from 52«. to 75«. each.
346 ARBITRATION AT GENEVA,
A Mr. Laamont Dupont also came to England, farnisbed with a credit
of £82,800 on Messrs. Baring, and purchased and shipped saltpeter to
the amonnt of very nearly £80,000.
Messrs. Naylor, Vickers & Co., of New York, Liverpool, and London,
bought and shipped to the United States large quantities of smaH-anus.
They were supplied from Birmingham alone with 156,000 rifles between
June, 1862, and July, 1863. They acted very extensively as agents of the
United States Government, and submitted to that Government large pro-
posals from the Birmingham Small-Arms Gomi>any. The Assistant
Secretary of War at Washington, in a letter addressed to them on the
20th October, 1862, directly sanctioned an arrangement for the supply
of 100,000 riflps, and the acceptance of this order was duly notified to
the Secretary of War by a letter from Birmingham, dated November 4,
1862. The arms were sent to Liverpool for shipment. In December,
1863, fifty 68-pounder guns were proved at the royal arsenal at Wool-
wich, at the request of Messrs. T. and C. Hood, and, after proof, were
taken away by Messrs. Naylor & Co., and shipped to New York. Mr.
Marcellus Hartley, of the firm of Schuyler, Hartley & Graham, already
mentioned, was also a large purchaser of small-arms in London during
the latter half of the year 1862.^
Warehouses were openly taken at Birmingham for the reception of
arms when completed, after which they were shipped through the agency
of Messrs. Barings and of Brown, Shipley & Co., and Wright & Co.,
of LiveriK)ol.
Had the United States no treasury in Great Britain t No less a one
than the great house of Baring Brothers, with whbm large credits were
opened. The house appears to have been energetic in its efforts in far-
thering the United States armaments. *'Yoa will please express my
acknowledgments," writes the United States Secretary of War to Mr.
Schuyler, "to Messrs. Baring Brothers & Co., for their prompt and pa-
triotic action in facilitating your operations. The terms oflFered by
Messrs. Baring Brothers & Co., namely, 1 per cent, commission and 5
per cent, interest per annum, as agreed upon by them with the Navy
Department, are approved." *
Of course the " prompt and patriotic action" of Baring Brothers & Co.
was in perfect conformity with neutral duties. But, what would hare
been said, if that great and wealthy house, its leading member having
an influential voice in the House of Commons, had undertaken and ex-
hibited equally " prompt and patriotic action " in facilitating confeder-
ate operations on the terms of 1 per cent commission and 5 per cent
interest ? or, was there to be one law for the United States and another
for the confederates 1 Her Majesty's government did not think so, and
Great Britain remained an arsenal for the latter as well as for the former.
Next as to Great Britain having been, as it is said, "the navy-yard
of the insurgents."
It was, of course, impossible to prevent the confederate government,
sh.p« obtained from rcduccd to dcspcratc straits by the blockade, and in want of
Gr«.t Driuin. ghips of War, from resorting to the ship-builders' yards of
Great Britain. It was impossible to^ prevent the ship-builders, who
looked upon the furnishing of such vessels as purely commercial trans-
actions— the Messrs. Laird who built the A^labama having been perfectly
willing, as appears from their correspondence with a Mr. Howard, \vlio
professed to have authority to enter into a contract with them, to build
» British Counter Case, pp. 52-^ ; British Appendix, vol. vi, pp. 153-160, 173, 18^
193.
3 British Appendix, vol. vi, p. 154.
OPINIONS OF SIR ALEXANDER COCKBURN. 347
vessels for the Federal Government, to supply ships to the latter as well
as to the insurgents — and who appear to have thought that, so long as
the ships were not armed in British waters, such transaction would not
be within the foreign-enlistment act — from entering into such contracts.
All the government could do was to use reasonable care to see that the
act was not violated.
Two vessels of war, and two only, the Florida and the Alabama,
equipped in British waters, found their way into the hands of the con-
federates. Whether, in respect of them, the British authorities were
wauting in due diligence, will be matter for future consideration, when
these vessels come specifically under review. The most unjustifiable
charge that the government were willfully wanting in the discharge of
their duty from motives of partiality has, I hope, been already disposed
of. Every other vessel built or equipped in British waters for the war
service of the confederate government was prevented by the 8tep« uken b7 the
act of the British government from coming into their hands. *"t»>»oo«™"»~»-
Immediate and untiring attention was paid to the frequent applications
of Mr. Adams, which for the most part turned out to have proceeded
on erroneous information. It may have been that, in the cases of the
Florida and the Alabama, the local ofilcers may have been somewhat
too much disposed to leave it to the United States ofiicers to make out
the case against the vessels. But such, as we have seen, had been the
traditional view of the matter, not only in England but in the United
States. These officers may have attached too much importance to the
fact that the vessels, though equipped for receiving arms, were not actu-
ally armed before leaving the port. In that they only shared the opinion
of two distinguished judges in the court of exchequer. But when the
authorities had become thoroughly alive to what was going on, no ves-
sel of war to which the notice of the Government was called, and which
proved to be intended for war, was suffered to escape. An enumeration
of the instances on which inquiry was instituted by Her Majesty's gov-
ernment, with the results, will set this part of the case in its true light,
and show the flagrant injustice of the wholesale accusations which have
been so unwarrantably made.
The first case in which a representation was made by Mr. Adams as
to a vessel supposed to be fitting out in England for warlike Ti^BemwdiL
purposes against the United States, in violation of the for-
eign enlistment act, was that of the Bermuda. Mr. Adams's letter was
dated the 15th of August, 1861. The principal grounds of suspicion al-
leged against the vessel were that she was '< ostensibly owned by the
commercial house of Eraser, Trenholm & Co., of Liverpool, well known
to consist in part of Americans, in sympathy with the insurgents in the
United States;^ that she was armed with guns, and had been for some
time taking in crates, cases, and barrels, believed to contain arms and
ammunition of all kinds ordinarily used in carrying on war. Mr. Adams
continues :
This cargo is Dominally entered as destined (o Havana, in the island of Cuba, but her
annanieut and cargo are of such a nature as to render it morally certain that the mer-
chants who claim to be the owners can have no intention of dispatching her on any
errand of mercy or of peace.
I am informed that tnis vessel wiU sail in a day or two ; I therefore feel nnder the
highest obligation to submit the information I have obtained as the ground for applica-
tion for a prompt and effective investigation of the truth of the allegations while
there is time. Not doubting the earnest disposition uf Her Majesty's government faith-
fully to adhere to the principles of neutrality to which it has pledged itself, I ask, ob
the part of the United States, for no more than a simple enforcement of the law, in
case It shall appear that evil-minded persons are seeking to set it at naught.^
^ British Appendix, vol. ii, p. 133.
348 ARBITRATION AT GENEVA.
Mr. Adams, it would seem, entertained none of those notions of tbe
duty or the necessity of having recourse to prerogative force in order
efficiently to observe the obligations of neutrality, of which we hear so
much in the argument of the United States.
Inquiry was at once made by the government The collector of cus-
toms at West Hartlepool, where the vessel was, reported the next day
as follows :
Finding, from a comninnication which I had seen from the American consnl at Lewis
to bis broker here, that tbe steamer in question was suHi>ected to be titling oat at this
port for ihe purpose of bein|( used as a privateer for tbe Confederate States, I have been
keeping an eye on her, but I see notliing to indicate such to be her object, either as
regards her external equipments, or the character of her crew, or anything in her case
more than usual to give^ ground for remark, unless it be the circumstance that a ]ar<re
portion of her cargo consists of arms and ammuuiliou ; and it is possible that, although
the destination of the vessel ostensibly is Havana, it may be the design eventually to
run some if not the whole of the goads on board into the States referred to.^
The rest of the information collected pointed to a similar conclusion,
and Mr. Adams was accordingly informed, on the advice of the attorney-
general, that the vessel did not come within the terms of the foreign-
enlistment act, (to which, in his letter, he had referred,) and that there
was no ground for any interference with the clearance or depart4ire.
The Bermuda turned out, in fact, to be a blockade-runner. She sailed
from Liverpool with cargo for Savannah, and succeeded in entering that
Ijort and returning to Liverpool. On her second voyage she was cap-
tured by a United States ship, and condemned as prize.
The next cases in order of time to which Mr. Adams called the atten-
tion of the British government were those of the Oreto or Florida,
and of the Alabama, originally known as No. 290. As I shall have to
enter in detail into the facts connected with these vessels further on,
I will not here allude to them more particularly.
On the 16th January, 1863, Mr. Adams made a representation to Earl
^^ ^ . ^ Russell respecting the Georgiana, a vessel built at Glasgow,
eG«rf..nfc ^^^^ ^^^^^ fittlug out at Livcrpool, which he stated he "had
reason to believe was intended to pursue a similar course with that for-
merly called No. 290 — to wit, the destruction of the commerce of the
United Stat^js." Mr. Adams inclosed a letter from the United States
consul in London, " giving," as he said, the "particulars based upon
credible information received by him, the authority for which it is not
in his power to disclose," and he thus concludes his letter :
I therefore solicit the interposition of Her Majesty's govern ment, at least so far as
to enable me to procure further evidence to establish the proof of the allegations here
made in season for the prevention of this nefarious enterprise.^
Lord Bussell informed Mr. Adams on the following day, the 17th,
that he had communicated copies of his letter and its iuclosure to tbe
board of treasury and to the secretary of state for the home depart-
ment without delay, and had requested that orders might be sent by
telegraph to the proper authorities at Liverpool, enjoining them to take
such steps in the matter as might legally be taken. He added :
I think it right, however, to observe that Her Majesty's government cannot bo an-
swerable for any difficulty which may bo experienced in carrying out those orders, in
consequence of the evidence on which the statement of the United States cunsol is
made being withheld from them.^
Inquiries were accordingly made, both by the customs officers aad hy
the detective police at Liverpool, but it was found that the vessel was
not in any way adapted for warlike purposes, and that from the nature
^ British Appendix, vol. ii, y. 134.
«Ibid., p.l47.
31bid., p. 148.
OPINIONS OP SIR ALEXANDER COCKBURN. 349
of her build, lier car^o, and other attendant circumstances, she seemed
to be intended to run the blockade ; and such, in Cict, proved to be the
case.
On the 21st of March, 1863, Lord Russell wrote to Mr. A^ams " with
reference to a report that vessels of war were being built
at- Glasgow for the so-styled Confederate States; that it "•••*^^'"^*'*-
appeared from information collected by the commissioner of customs
that there were only two large steamers in course of construction at the
yard of Messrs. Thompson & Co.; that one of them had the appearance
of being constructed to receive armor -plates, but that the bottom was
not more than half plated, and that the planking of her top-sides had
only just commenced.'- The other. Lord Russell wrote, was a screw-
fiteamer intended to be employed in the Mediterranean trade, but
neither of these vessels could be completed for several months.^
In forwarding this letter to Mr. Seward, Mr. Adams stated :
It is proper to mention tbat the investigation appears to have been initiated by his
lordship npon information not fnrnisheil from this legation, and that Lord RusselPs
coinniuuication to me was perfectly spontaneous.^
Mr. Adams's letter of acknowledgment to Earl Russell is as follows:
My Lokd: I had the honor to receive your lordship's note of the 2l8t instant, ap-
priHJng me of the preparations making in the yard of Messrs. Thompson &. Co. of a
vfHsel evidently constructed for hostile purposes.
Information of the same nature received from other sources has lc<l me to a belief
that this is one of a number intended to carry on the piratical species of warfare prac-
ticed by the insurgents against the commerce of the United States, in accordance with
the plans laid down in the intercepted correspondence which I had the honor some
time since to lay before you. It is a source of much gratification to me to learn that
this proceeding is exciting the attention of Her Majesty's government.^
The intercepted correspondence alluded to by' Mr. Adams had been
forwarded by him to Earl Russell qn the 9th of February, 1863.* It
related to arrangements for the issue of a loan in England, on account
of the confederate government, for the export of munitions of war to
the Confederate States, and also to a sui)posed contract made by the
confederate navy department with a Mr. Sanders, for the construction
in England of six iron-clad steamers, combining the capacities of freight-
ing and fighting ships, in a manner which could enable them to force
the blockade. A correspondence ensued in which Lord Hussell denied
that the papers proved any overt acts against the law which warranted
a criminal prosecution of the parties concerned. He added, however,
in a note of the 2d of April, 1863, that—
In view of the statements contained in the intercepted correspondence, Her Majesty's
government have renewed the instructions already given to the cnstom-house authori-
ties of the several British portfl where ships of war may be constructed, and by the
Kecretary of state for the home department to varions authorities with whom he is in
communication, to endeavor to discover and obtain legal evidence of any violation of
the foreign-enlistment act with a view to the strict enforcement of that statute when-
ever it can Ije readily shown to be infringed, and Her Majestj-^s government would be
ohliged to yon to communicate to them, or to the local authorities at the several ports,
any evidence of iUegal acts which may from time to time become known to 3"ou/
On the 26th of March, 1863, Mr. Adams wrote to Earl Eussell, for-
warding an extract of a letter from Mr. Dudley, the United jh* phantom .nd
States consid at Liverpool, on the subject of two vessels, »«»»'»*""•
the Phantom and the Southerner, which the consul believed to be in-
tended for confederate cruisers.^ The principal reason for Mr. Dud-
* United States Documents, vol. ii, p. 203.
« Ibid., p. 704.
» Ibid., p. 703.
* Ibid, vol. i, pp. 56-i-574.
B Ibid., p. 590.
0 Britisn Appendix, vol. ii, p. 167.
350 AKBITBATION AT GENEVA.
ley^A suspicions seems to have been the connection of the firms of Fra-
ser, Trenholm & Co., and Fawcett, Preston & Co., with these vessek
He says at the end of the letter: '^ 1 suppose it will be impossible {or
me to obtaio legal evidence against these two vessels, and nothing short
of this will satisfy this government." Even of the information fur-
nished by Mr. Dudley, part — namely, that the last-named of these two
vessels, the Southerner, had arrived at Liverpool — was erroneous, and
was corrected by Mr. Adams in his note, according to later advices
received from Liverpool.
Mr. Adams was informed on the following day that immediate inqniry
would be made on the subject, and inquiries were accordingly at ODce
made, as in the case of the Georgiana, both through the customs au-
thorities at Liverpool and by means of detective police officers, as to
these two vessels. . They failed to produce any evidence against them,
and indeed one of them turned out to be a blockade-runner, and tbe
other was afterwards engaged in trade in the Mediterranean. lu ac-
knowledgment of the steps which had been taken, Mr. Adams wrote as
follows to Earl Kussell on the 6th of April, 1863 :
It is a source of great satisfaction to me to recognize the readiness i^rhich Her Maj-
esty's goveruiuent bas thas manifested to make the investigationst desired, as well as
to receive the assurances of its determination to maintain a close observation of fntore
movements of an unnsual character that justif^r suspicions of any evil intent.*
On the 28th March, 1863, Mr. Dudley, the United States consul at
Tbe Akxandr.. Llvcrpool, wrotc to the collector of customs at that port, for-
warding six depositions relative to a vessel called the Alexandra, and
applying for her seizure. Copies of these depositions were also for-
warded to Earl Eussell, by Mr. Adams, on the 31st of March; and after
further inquiry by the authorities, the ship was seized on the 5th of
April. Mr. Adams, being informed of this step, wrote on the 6th of
April to Earl Kussell to express his " lively satisfaction.'^
The history of this vessel is well known. The proceedings wbich
were instituted by the government in the proper court, failed, under the
direction of the lord chief baron to the jury that, to establish the in-
tention that the vessel had been equipped for the purpose of war, it was
necessary that she should have been armed, as well as fitted for tbe
reception of guns. The jury having given a verdict against the Crown,
the application to the court of exchequer for a new trial, on the ground
of misdirection of the judge in so directing the jury, failed by reason
of the judges of that court being equally divided in opinion. "Writing
to Mr. Adams after the verdict had been given, Mr. Seward says :
You are antborized and expected to assure Earl Russell that this Governnieut is en-
tirely satisfied that Her Majesty's fj^overumeut have conducted the proceed in ji^s ju tbat
case with perfect good faith and honor, and that they are well dis|M>8ed to preveut tbe
fitting out of armed vessels in British ports to depredate upon American commerce
and to make war against the United States.
This Government is satisfied that the law-officers of the Crown have performed their
duties in regard to the case of the Alexandra with a sincere conviction of tbe ade-
quacy of the law of Great Britain, and a siucere desire to give it etiect.^
An appeal was made to the court of exchequer chamber, but it
turned out that, owing to an omission in the act constituting the latter,
no provision had been made for such a case.
After a detention of a year, pending the trial and appeal, the Alex-
andra was liberated.
> British Appendix, vol. ii, p. 171.
3 Ihid., p. 831.
» United States Documents, vol. ii, p. 291.
OPINIONS OF SIR ALEXANDER COCKBURN. 351
She went first to Bermuda, then to Halifax, and from thence to Nas^
Ban, where, after repeated investigations, she was again seized, in De-
cember, I864,'on a fresh charge of an intention to employ her as a ship
of war in the confederate service, and though the proceedings in the
vice-admiralty (K>urt there ended in an acquittal, the decision did not
take place till the end of May, 18G5, when tbe civil war was at an end.
The costs and damages incurred by the government on account of the
two seizures amounted to over £4,000.
On the 6th of April, 1863, a dispatch was received from the British
consul at New York, in which allusion was made to a report Th« south cnrouiM.
which had appeared in the newspapers of that city, that the Georgiana,
which, as I have already said, was no more than a blockade-runner, and
which is so denominated in the United States Documents,^ was intended
to be armed as a confederate cruiser, and that a similar vessel, called
the South Carolina, was building in the Clyde. The matter was referred
to the commissioners of customs, and the latter reported, on the 13th
of April, as follows :
On the receipt of the said letter, we referred the same t<o oar coUector at Glasgow
for bis inquiry respecting the South Carolina ; and it appears from the report of the
measuring surveyor of shipping at that port, which has been forwarded to us by the
collector, that there are about forty ships building at the present time in the port, and
it may be intended to give one of them that name; that the only ship apparently de-
signecl for a ship of war is the one building in the yard of Messrs. Thomson, referred
to in our report to your lordships of the 11th ultimo, and that she is still in a very un-
finished state. The measuring surveyor adds that he is giving his closest attention to
this vessel, and will take care to keep the collector fully informed of her progress from
time to time. '^
A report having appeared in the "Daily JS^ews,'^ on the 17th of
March, 1863, that the Gibraltar, which, after aeting as a p-h. oibraiur or
confederate ship of war under the name of the Sumter, had *"■"*•"•
been sold to private owners, and had arrived at Liverpool in the previ-
ous month, was fitting out at Birkenhead as a vessel of war. Lord Kus-
sell at once requested that inquiries might be made on the subject, and
communicated the result to Mr. Adams. 1 shall have subsequently to
go fully into the case of this vessel also, which was an object of con-
stant vigilance dnriug her stay at Liverpool, and which was not per-
mitted to leave until the authorities were satisfied that there was no
intention of again equipping her as a confederate cruiser.
On the 7th of July, 1863, Mr. Dudley forwarded to the collector of
customs at Liverpool several depositions relative to two iron- g iroo^ud. .t sir-
clad steamships building in Messrs. Lairds' yard at Birken- k»»»»«»J-
head, which were alleged to be iutended for the service of the Confed-
erate States, one only of which had at the time been launched, the other
being still in process of construction. Representations were also made
on the subject by Mr. Adams, and a lengthened correspondence ensued.
A strict watch was from the first kept upon the vessels, and inquiries
made as to their character and destination. It was at first re-
ported that they were built for the government of France. Subsequently
they were claimed by a M. Bravay, of Paris, who produced a legal in-
strument, from which it appeared that the vessels had, in fact, been built
to the order of Captain Bullock, (the confederate agent who had been
instrumental in obtaining the Florida and Alabama for the confederate
government,) but that Bullock had transferred his interest in them to
Bravay. M. Bravay stated that he had purchased them for the Viceroy
1 Vol. i, p. 772.
> British Appendix, vol. ii, p. 163.
352 ARBITRATION AT GENEVA.
of E«2:ypt ; but the Yiceroj', on inquiry, disclaimed any intention of ac-
quiring them.
On the 9th of September, 1863, a letter was addressed to the build-
ers, Messrs. Laird, informinjj them that the government could not per-
mit the vessels to leave the Mersey until satisfactory evidence could be
given of their destination, or until the inquiries then being prosecuted
on the subject should be brought to a conclusion ; and, on the 9th of
October following, both vessels were seized and given over into the care
of the captain of Her Majesty's ship Majestic, then stationed at Liver-
pool. A commission was sent to Egypt for the purpose of procuring
evidence with a view to their condemnation, but the result appearing
doubtful, it was decided by the government to purchase them, thongii
it was not in want of them, rather than run the risk of their passing
directly or indirectly into the hands of a belligerent. They were accord-
ingly purchased in May, 1864, for the sum of £220,000.^
Mention has already been made of the inquiries instituted by the
TiieCantonorPnin f?^vernment as to vessels supposed to be building for the
>*'• Confederate States at Glasgow. On the 17th of October,
1863, Mr. Adams wrote to Earl Russell, stating that, in addition to a
formidable steam-ram in i^rocess of construction at that port, there was
also another steamer ready to be launched, called the Canton, having
all the characteristics of a war-vessel, which was about to be fitted out
and dispatched with the same intent from the same place. Mr. Adams
indosecl some extracts from a letter from the United States consul at
Glasgow, who, he said, entertained no doubt as to the destination of tlie
vessel, although, from the secrecy used in the process of construction
and preparation, he had been slow in gaining evidence on which to base
a representation.^
Directions were at once given to the proper authorities to make in-
quiries and to take any measures which might legally be possible. The
investigations remained for some time without any definit'C result. The
vessel was carefully examined. It appeared that though in course of
being fitted as a passenger-ship, she possessed some peculiarities of
construction which rendered her capable of being converted into a ves-
sel serviceable for warlike use. The builders, however, and the firm
through whom she had been contracted for, disclaimed any knowledge
of such an intention, and declared their belief that she was intended
for the merchant service. The evidence as to her being intended for
the confederate service, which was supplied by the United States con-
sul, did not go beyond vague rumor and hearsay.
The vessel was launched on the 29th of October, 1863. On the 16th
of November the collector of customs at Glasgow reported that, as she
was being rapidly got ready for sea, he had arranged with the capbiin
of Her Majesty's ship flogue, then stationed in the Clyde, to prevent
the possibility of a departure pending the decision of the authorities;'
and a week later a gun-boat was moored alongside of her to prevent any
chance of her leaving surreptitiously.*
By the end of November, the inquiries of the Government led to the
production of evidence showing who were the real owners of the
vessel, and that they had contracted to sell her to one Sinclair, calHng
himself a citizen of the Confederate States. A letter from Sinclair was
produced, dated in the previous September, in which he said that " the
1 British Appendix, vol. ii, pp. 457-459.
« Ibid., p. 467.
> Ibid., p. 499.
« Ibid., p. 508.
OPINIONS OF SIR all:xandi:r cockburn. 353
determination of tbe go\ eniuieut to prevent tlie sailiugr of any vesse
that might be suspected of being the property of a citizen of the Con-
federate States was made so manifest, that he had concluded it would
be better for him to endeavor to close the contract and go where he
could have more liberal action y-^ and it appeared from the further cor-
resi)ondeuce that he had agreed to do this, even on condition of forfeit-
ing tbe cotton-certitlcatcs which he had already deposited as security.
The Pampero was seized on the lOtb of December, and legal proceed-
ings were instituted, a verdict was entered against her by default, and
she remained under seizure until some months after the termination of
the civil war.
As regards the other vessel building in Messrs. Thompson's yard at
Glasgow, on which the authorities, as has been mentioned, i,on.H«d rtm m
were keeping watch, Mr. Adams, writing respecting the <•'•«"*
seizure of the Pampero, reports as follows, (January 28, 1864:)
One good effect of these various proceedings has been to remove all farther anxiety
respecting the destination of the formidable iron-clad ram in process of construction at
the same place. That she was ordered in the first instance by the rebels, I have no
manner of donbt; she has now been purchased by the Danish government, as I learn
from the Minister, M. de BUle.-
In September, 18C3, an old gun-boat named the Victor, being con-
sidered as rotten and unserviceable, was sold by the British
^ovenjment to a private firm. The firm having afterward ^'* "'^"'•^^""''^
applied for the masts and sails of the vessel, the question of granting
the application was referred to Earl llussell, who advised, as a measure
of precaution, that the masts and sails should for the present be re-
served.^ On the 24th November, 18G3, she suddenly left Sheerness, where
she was being prepared for sea, at midnight, and crossed over to Calais.*
She was still in a condition quite unfit to go to sea, her rigging being
incomplete and her crew deficient. At Calais her commander declared
ber to be a confederate vessel of war, though she was neither equipped,
manned, nor armed. She was allowed to remain, and to make such
repairs as were necessary to render her seaworthy, but the precautions
taken by the authorities to prevent her being maile more serviceable for
warlike purposes rendered her practically useless for the confederate
service. It having been discovered that large additions had been made
to her crew, the French government refused to permit her departure,
and she was eventually abandoned by her officers.^
" Contrast, again," says the Case of the United States triumphantly,
'* the course of the French government with that of the British govern-
ment in like cases. What vessel bearing a commission was ever dis-
turbed by a British gunboat, no matter how flagrant might have been
her violations of British sovereignty F Had those who ask this ques-
tion forgotten the case of a cerUiin vessel called the Canton, or Pam-
pero, which was served exactly in the same manner, having first had a
gunboat placed alongside of her and having been afterward seized I
No information had been received by the government tending to
throw any suspicion on the Victor before her departure. Evidence
having subsequently been furnished by Mr. Adams to Lord Hussell
tending to implicate various persons in the fitting-out of this vessel and
the obtaining a crew for her, prosecutions were instituted against such
' British Appendix, vol. ii, p. 511.
'^ United States Documents, vol. ii, p. 225.
'* British Appendix, vol. ii, p. 615.
Mbid.,p. 619.
^ Ibid., p. 672; United States Docuntents, vol. vi, p. 174.
23 B
354 ARBITRATION AT GENEVA.
of tbein as seemed to have rendered themselves liable to ptinisUmentf
and several of them were convicted or pleaded guilty. Among others,
proceedings were taken against Mr. Rumble, an officer in thegoveru-.
ment dockyard at Sheerness,and, though he was acquitted, the govern-
ment marked their displeasure at hie conduct by dismissing Jiiim from
his appointment and placing him upon half-pay, as an officer in whom
they could no longer put any confidence.^
In consequence of the events connected with the Rappahannock, the
British government at once gave orders that no more ships should be
sold out of the navy during the continuance of the war.
An advantageous offer having been made to the admiralty, in Decem-
ber, 1863, for two vessels (the Reynard and Alacrity) which it was
thought desirable to dispose of, the matter was referred to Earl Eus
sell, who gave as his opinion that ** it would be much better at the
present time not to sell any vessels to private firms, as it is impossible to
obtain any sufficient assurance in regard to wliat may be done with
vessels when sold out of the navy.''^^
It was also thought right to keep careful watch on another vessel, the
Amphion, which had already been sold to a private firm,
The Amphion. ^^^ ^^^ poHcc authoritics were directed to make inquiries
on the subject in January, 18G4.^ The vessel was at that time lying
dismantled and dismasted. In March following Mr. Adams wrote to
call Lord Russell's attention to the subject, and a constant watch was
kept on her by the police. She seems to have been in a state quit^ un-
fitted for war purposes, and her destination was stated to be Copenha-
gen. She was eventually stranded on the British coast a few months
later, and broken up.*
On the 1st April, 18G4, the suspicions of the customs collector at
Glasgow having been excited by certain peculiarities of cod-
ThcHawk. struction in a vessel recently built at Renfrew, and named
the Hawk, he referred the matter to the authorities in Londdn. Pend-
ing their decision he refused the application made for a pass to enable
her to leave for the latter port.* On the Kith of the same month Mr.
Adams addressed a representation to Lord Russell on the same subject.
The Hawk shortly afterward left for London, as was at first believed,
without a clearance, and the owner was called upon for explanations.
The vessel was also subjected to strict examination by the police and
customs authorities. The explanations of the owner proving satisfac-
tory, and no evidence appearing to justify further measures, she was
allowed to dejiart — went to the West Indies, and returned, and was
never emi>loyed for any warlike purpose.
Four other vessels formed the subject of representations by Mr.
TheAjni.thrHer- Adams at thc commeucemcut of the year 1865 — the Ajax,
[he'u»u«l A^nn'Fun: thc Hcrculcs, thc Virginia, and the Louisa Ann Fanny. As
»>• to the first of these vessels, investigations had already been
made by the customs authorities at Dublin, while she was lying in
Kingston Harbor. In each case inquiries were made not only by the
home authorities, but by the governors of Bermuda and Nassau. None
of -the vessels in question were ever used for other than commercial
purposes.
I have only further to mention the case of the flotilla of gun-boats
» British Appendix, vol. ii, p. 674.
=^ Ibid., vol. V, p. 201.
' Ibid., vol. ii, p. 566.
Mbid., pp. f>68, 571, and 572.
»Ibid.. np..'>39-541.
OPINIONS OF SIR ALEXANDER COCKBURN. 355
procured for the Chinese government by Mr. Lay, which it was in-
tended should be manned and officered by British sailors
under the command of Captain Sherard Osborn. Ar.gio.chme»e aeet.
On the 28th of Febniary, 1863, a letter was addressed to Mr. Lay, by
Earl Kussell's directions, requesting him to give the i)articular8 of the
vessels obtained by him for that purpose, and the information given by
Mr. Lay was communicated to Mr. Adams, to whom it was likely to be
of service in distinguishing the vessels really destined for the service
of the Emperor of China from those reported to be so, as a [fretext for
other purposes connected with the confederate service.
On the arrival of the fleet in China, a difference arose with the Chi-
nese government as to the terms on which the command of the fleet
should be held, and Captain Osborn eventually declined the appoint-
ment.
Under these circumstances the British minister at Peking was of
opinion — an opinion which was shared by his American colleagues —
that if the fleet was allowed to remain in the hands of the Chinese gov-
ernment, there was great danger of the vessels being bought for em-
ployment as confederate cruisers. It was therefore arranged that Cap-
tain Osborne should take back part of the fleet to Bombay and part to
England, and there dispose of them for the Chinese government; and
the vessels were brought back accordingly.
On hearing of this arrangement the British government gave orders
that every precaution should be taken to prevent their passing into the
hands of any belligerent power. The sale of one of the vessels at
BoDDibay was stopped; but as she was merely an unarmed dispatch-
boat, the prohibition was subsequently^ removed. The other ships were
held in the custody' of the government, and the lawoflicers having ad-
vised that the sale within the British dominions of armed ships of war,
already equipped for a different purpose, was not contrary to the for-
eign-enlistment act, the government determined upon taking upon
themselves the responsibility of detaining them unsold. A committee
was accordingly appointed to assess the values of the vessels, and the
Chinese government were assured that they should not ultimately lose
by any delay in the sale. Several overtures for the purchase of one or
other of the ships fell through in consequence of the stringent nature
of the guarantees required against their emi)loyment by belligerents,
or from other causes ; and they were in consequence not disposed of
till after the close of the war. The delay and consequent deterioration
of the vessels caused a loss of over £100,000, which was made good by
the British government to that of China.
It thus appears that, during the whole course of the civil war, two •
ships only were built in Great Britain for, and actually oe„,„,„,„,i.
employed in, the service of the confederates. Four others ^™'" "*"''
were intended to be built and equipped, but were arrested while
in the course of construction. Four merchant-vessels, though not
adapted for warlike purposes, were converted into vessels of war by
having guns put on board, but out of the jurisdiction of the British
government — two of them in confederate ports — and this by reason of
the impossibility of getting ships of war built, owing to the active vigil-
ance of the authorities. And it is upon this foundation that Great
Britain is represented as having been "the navy -yard of the insurgent
States," and that men who must be supposed to have a conscientious
appreciation of what is just and right, accuse Earl Russell and Her
Majesty's government of ''a consistent course of partiality toward the
insurgents," and of "a want of diligence bordering upon willful negli-
gence.'"
o56 * ARBITRATION AT GENEVA.
In the United States argument the proceedings of other govern-
rror^.H.n,...f mcnts HYO couipared with those of Great Britain, to the
vi.cr,o.eru..u,.t.. (lisparagement of the latter. Thus, of Brazil, it is said:
We bog leave to refer this bigli tribaoal to the administrative regulations of the
Brazilian Empire for the enforcement of neutrality in all tbe ports of
K 17.1. the empire, in the amplest manner, by efficient action on the part of the
imiierial ministers, and of the provincial presidents.
In tlie American case, and the documents to which it refers, there is sufficient indi-
cation of the loyalty and efficiency with which the Brazilian government maintiUQi'd
its sovereignty' against the aggressive efforts of the confederates.
After the correspondence which I have alrejidy inserted, I may very
well say that not even with Her Majesty's government or officers did
the correspondence of the United States Government assume so angry
a tone as that which pervades the letters between the American miuis-
ter Jind the Brazilian government^
Portugal is referred to in the American argument in these terms :
As to Portugal, we refer to the correspondence annexed to the American CoanU-r
Case, to show that she also never pretended that her neutral duty was Gon-
i''"t>iK>i. fined to the execution of the provisions of her penal code. She also put
forth the executive power of the Crown to prevent, repress, or repel ag-
gressive acts of the confederates in violation of her hospitality, or in derogation of
her sovereignty. Nay more, the government of Portugal, finding its own naval force
. inadequate to prevent the confederates from abusing the right of asylum in the West-
em Islands, expressly authorized the American Governmeut to send a naval force
there for the purpose of defending the sovereignty and executing the law of Portugal.-
On turning to the documents referred to, I find that Portugal did
what, as a neutral power, it was bound to do, namely, interfere to pre-
vent the Azores from being made a depot of munitions of war or coal
for the confederate cruisers.
With reference to the authority given to the United States Govern
luent to send a naval force to the Azores, all that appears is, that when
Mr. Harvey, the United States minister, informed the Viscount Sa da
Bandeira, the minister for war, then acting as minister for foreign affairs,
what was going on at the Azores, the minister said, '* that the islands
in question had been used and abused by corsairs and i)irates during
centuries; that they were exposed and unprotected, and therefore
might be so employed again, and that the best plan would be to send a
sullicieut force there to protect American ships against threatened dep-
redations, and to punish criminal oflfenders.'" In other words, the Amer
icans were to take care of themselves. This is dignified by the name of
*' defending the sovereignty and executing the law of Portugal.^ I may
add that when the confederate steamship Stonewall was at Lisbon
she was allowed to supply herself with coal, notwithstanding the re
. monstrances of the American consul. In conformity with the general
rule she was required to leave in twenty-four hours.
The American argument informs us that —
When attempts were made by the confederates to construct and equip cruisei^
^.^^^^ in the ports of France, on complaint being made by the minister of
""""■ the United States, the construction of these vessels was arrested; aod
when a builder professed that vessels nndor construction, with suspicion of being in-
tended for the confederates, were in fact intended for a neutral government, the French
ministers re<|uired proof of such professed honest intention, and carefully watcbeil the^
Vessels to make sure that they shonld not go into the service of the confederates. Oo
this point we quote the language of the minister of marine, as follows :
** The vesssels of war to which yon have called our attention shall not leave tb^"
ports of France nntil it shall have been positively demonstrated that their destination
does not affect the principles of neutrality, which the French government wishea to
rigidly observe toward both belligerents/''
^ United States Argument, p. 66.
« Ibid., p. 67.
«Ibid., p. 6:^.
OPINIONS OF SIR ALEXANDKR COCKRLRX. 357
The documents annexed to the Connter Case of the United States do
not contain more than a small selection of the correspondence relating to
this subject, which is given in greater detail in the memoire and docu-
ments submitted by the United States to the French courts of justice
in the "Affaire Arman," documents which, to quote the words of the
memoire itself, "show most clearly the dangers to which M. Arman
and his associates exposed the maintenance of peace between France
and the United States."^
The suit in question was instituted in Kovember, 18G7, on the part of
the United States against MM. Arman, Voruz, and others, for the re-
covery of moneys disbursed by Bullock, acting as agent of the Con-
federate States, for the construction of six vessels of war in France.
After explaining that the measures taken by the British government
in respect of the seizure of both the Alexandra and Pampero, and the
detention of the Birkenhead rams, had compelled the confederates " to
seek in France the market they were losing on the other side of the
channel,"*^ the memoire proceeds to relate that their choice fell on M.
Lncien Arman, (member for Bordeaux in the French legislative as-
sembly,) '* whose official position seemed calculated to secure greater
freedom and certain i mpunit^' for the execution of these orders.*^ An agree-
ment was accordingly entered into with Arman by Bullock, who stated in
the contract that " with a view to establish regular communications by
steam between Shanghai, Osaca, Yedo, and San Francisco, he wished
to procure in France lour steamers of great speed, fitted to carry from
ten to twelve guns, for their protection in those distant parts.'"
Arman undertook to build two of these steamers in his own yards at
Bordeaux, and sub-let the building of the other two to " another deputy
of the corps l^gislatif," M. Voruz, of Nantes. Besides these four steamers
he farther entered, on the 16th July, 1863, into a fresh agreement with
Bullock " for two iron-clad steam-rams."
One difficulty had to be removed before the final ratification of these
contracts, and that was the restriction placed by the royal ordinance of
1847 on the exportation of arms and munitions of war.
It has been already shown that this enactment had no reference to
the special subject of neutrality, and simply formed part of that general
legislation by which the state in France has frequently sought, in its
own interest, to place restraints upon private commerce in articles of a
warlike character. In the present instance, however, its practical
effect was to interfere with the arming of the vessels. Accordingly, M.
Arman applied to the government for permission to arm the four ves-
sels, which were building ostensibly for service in the China Seas, and
this was readily granted, on the faith of his assurance, by the Marquis
de Ghasseloup-Laubat, the minister of marine.
In the following September the knowledge of these facts was betrayed
to Mr. Bigelow, then United States consul at Paris, by a clerk of M.
Arman, who furnished him, at the same time, with the originals of the
deeds drawn up between his employer and the confederate agent, Bul-
lock, as well as of the correspondence exchanged between the parties,
and other papers, which placed beyond possibility of doubt the exist-
ence of an intention on the part of Arman to violate the neutrality of
France.
Mr. Dayton at once brought the matter under the notice of M.
Drouyn de Lhuys, then minister for foreign affairs, and followed up his
' Mc'moire pom* les CtiitH-TTuis cVAuj^riqiie, p. r»-l.
- Page 4.
♦*llml., p. G.
358 ARBITRATION AT GENEVA.
first representations with a formal demand, on the 22d ^September, that
" the permission to arm the vessels should be withdrawn, the mauufae
tare of the guns and shot suspended, and if already completed, that
the deli\-erv should be prevented." He called on the Fi^ench govern-
ment to " take such steps as it might deem best calculated to stop the
building or departure of the above-mentioned vessels."
Writing on the 9th October, to express his approval of the course
adopted by Mr. Dayton, Mr. Secretary Seward says :
It is hardly necessary to inform you that the President awaits with much solicitmV
the decision of His Imperial Miyesty's government upon the application you buve
made, and cannot but regard an adverse decision as jtreguant with very seriou»
consequences.
On the 1st of November Mr. Seward writes again to Mr. Dayton,
expressing his disappointment at the indirect and inconclusive answer
received from the French government, and relying on Mr. Dayton\s
endeavors to obtain a more satisfactory reply.
The minister of marine withdrew the permission to arm the vessels.
but justified the course he had taken in granting it ^' on the buikler\>
declaration.^ This measure, however, the memorial informs us, *'did not
put a stop to the construction or fitting out of the vessels,'' which
Arman continued, possibly in the hope of disposing of tliem to the
confederates ; but this the measures taken by the French government
prevented, except in the case of one of the steam rams building at
Bordeaux.
The history of this vessel, originally known as the Sphinx may be thu>
summed up from the m<^moire and correspondence annexeil
The stonewall. .t ^
thereto :
On the 4th February, 1864, M. Drouyn de Lhuys informed ]Mr. Day-
ton that Arman had given him the most positive assurance that he had
sold the two ironclads, viz, the Sphinx and her sister- vessel, the Cheops*
to the Danish government.^ Mr. Dayton made inquiries at Copenhagen,
which resulted in a formal contradiction of the fact by the Danish
minister for foreign affairs. M. Arman next represented to M. Drouyn
de Lhuys that he had sold them to Sweden, and M. Drouyn de Lhuy>
repeated to Mr. Dayton, on the 7th of April, this new statement ot
Arman, (which, however, was almost immediately afterward contra
dieted by the Swedish foreign minister,) declaring himself "satisfied
that the sale had been completed."* Mr. Dayton did not place the same
confidence in Arman's assertions, and continued, in obedience to the
instructions of his Government, to make serious representations to M.
Drouyn de Lhuys on the subject of the rams. On the Sth rlune he
writes to Mr. Seward :
I liad already informed M. Droiivn de LhnvM of the verv st>ri(»us obar.^ctcr of tbcv
questions, and the probable ('oiist'<iuences wbich would result fioin tbe couipictioD au*i
delivery of tbese vessels to tbe confederates. I bave, on all oceasions, uimhI stronj;
laufTua^o wbeii ap]died to tbese questions. I told bini to-day tbat, in expressing thr
views of tbe President on tins subject, I could scarcely speak witb the necessary cju-
uestness and directness, witbout trencbing on tbat respectfnl forbearance of lan^ruap'
to wbicb I di'sired at all times to limit myself in our otbeial intercourse. I told him
tbat should these vessels pass into the bands of tbe confederates, becoifte amie<l »"«'
commence a system of depredation on our commerce, tbe exa.spi*ratioj) would U' snd
tbat tbe (roverument., if so disposed (wbicb I did not intimate tbat it would be) cotiM
scarcely keep tbe peace between tbe two countries.
In the mean time, Arman bad succeeded in defeating the vigilance of
the French authorities in the following manner : In March, 1S04, he
' Mr. Dayton to Mr. Seward, April 7, 18l>4.
- M<?moire, p. 2r
l^.
OriMONS OF SIR ALEXANDER COCKBURN. 359
had concluded a contract of sale with the Danish government, then at
war with the German Confederation, but the conditions of the contract
not having been observed, the Danish officer, to whom the Sphinx was
to have been handed over at Bordeaux, refused to receive her. Arman,
however took advantage of this contract to get the vessel out of French
waters under the name of the Stoerkodder^ and sent her to Copenhagen
under the pretence of again submitting her to inspection there. The
Danish government having persisted in their refusal to purchase the
vessel, he obtained permission to bring her back, rechristened as the
Olinde, under Danish colors to Bordeaux. On arriving in French
waters, off the island of Houat, on the coast of Brittany, she stopped
to receive from another steamer, by a preconcerted arrangement, a crew,
with an armament of artillery and munitions of war, hoisted the con-
federate flag, and, changing her name for the third time to that of the
Stonewall, left the French waters for Ferrol, in Spain, where she ob-
tained permission to remain and make some necessary repairs.
These proceedings were the subject of energetic remonstances at Paris
and Madrid, and would, in all probability, have given rise to much more,
had not the close of the civil war deprived the question of any practical
interest it might otherwise have had, the Stonewall having been unable
to commit any acts of warfare. The American Government wisely
preferred to drop its grievances, as Mr. Seward explains in a letter to
Mr. Bigelow, United States minister at Paris, dated 13th March, 1865:
Lo gonveTDcnicnt a A6jhj contre Ich puissances maritimes impliqudes dans cette
affaire, des causes de plainte assez nonibreuses et assez graves. II pr^f^re n^anmoins
entretenir la paix, riiarmonie et I'aniitid avec ces puissauces, plutdt que do rechercher
«le iionvelle« occasions de querelle, et il s'cstiriiera trths-heureux si Ie8appr<^ben8ioDB que
I'aifaire actaoUe a soulovdesne sont pas ju8tifi<^es. Les circonstances seniblent d'ailleurs
favoriser les y(bux dn gouveruement k cet eudroit. Nos deruiers avis t<51^graphique8
uoua affirment que le Stonewall est absohimeut bors d'dtat de tenir la mer, et que, pour
cette raisou et pour d'autres, les criminels qui le possedent cbercbeut a s*en d^bar-
rasser.
From this narrative it will be seen how very diflferent was the view
taken of these circumstances by the Government of the United States,
at the time when they occurred, from the color now sought to be put
upon them by the American argument.
The running of the blockade, as it is termed, by British vessels, and
the use of the Bahamas and Bermuda and other islands, as compuiot. or
places by means of which the blockade-running might be bi«i.de-runnin«.
facilitated, were, throughout the war, the cause of unceasing and loud
complaint on the part of the United States Government. No doubt it
was a very great annoyance to the United States; but it in reality
afforded no legitimate cause of grievance.
That, when the arms and munitions of war necessary to the confed-
erates had been purchased in Europe, means should be sought to convey
them to the purchasers was in the nature of things. That the high
rates of freight which, owing to the vital importance of obtaining these
supplies, the confederate government were willing to pay, should have
induced ship-owners to run the risk of capture and confiscation, and
that the high premiums for insurance which the owners of ships and
cargoes engaged in this traffic were willing to pay, should have tempted
insurers to undertake the risk of insuring them, cannot, knowing as we
do the boldness of mercantile speculation and enterprise, at all surprise
us. Accordingly, from a very early period of the war, vessels were em-
ployed to run the blockade with cargoes of articles of warlike use.
Before long a systematic traffic of this description became regularly
established. As the nature of the southern coast and the local peculi-
360 ARBITRATION AT GENEVA.
arities of its ports made it extremely difficult for ocean-gomg vessels to
avoid pursuit and capture in endeavoring to enter them, advantage was
taken of the proximity of the Bahama Islands and Bermuda to the
southern ports to transship the cargoes sent from England, at these
places, into fast steamers of light draught, which, taking advantage of
shallow waters into which they could not easily be pursued, could thus
find means of eluding the hostile cruisers. By these means, though ships
and cargoes to the value, it is said, of £8,000,000 sterling fell into the
hands of the Federals, a very largo quantity of arms and articles, con-
traband of war, found their way to the confederate government.
The first question which presents itself is, was the traffic unlawfal ?
So far unlawful undoubtedly, by the law of nations, as between the
rader and the blockading belligerent, that if the belligerent could catch
the vessel in the act of breaking the blockade, vessel and cargo would
become lawful prize ; but by the law of nations involving no ulterior
liability. By the municipal law not prohibited, and therefore not un-
lawful— not even sufficiently so, as has been lately held by Lord West-
bury in the case of ex parte Ohavasse in re Grazebrook,* and by Dr.
Lushington in that of the Helen,^ to avoid a contract made in contem-
plation of such a transaction. How as between the blockading bellig-
erent and the country of the blockade-running trader ? Clearly and in-
disputably without consequence of any sort.
It has never been contended by any one that a neutral state incurred
any responsibility by the general law of nations by reason of any viola-
tion of neutrality by its subjects, in carrying on trade with a blockaded
port. It is therefore clear that a neutral government is not bound to
prohibit such trade by its municipal law. With the single exception
of Denmark, if my memory does not deceive me, no European state has
prohibited it. The United States have no law which does so.
Such being the state of the international law of the civilized world
and the municipal law of Great Britain on the breaking out of the war,
not only was it not incumbent on Great Britain as a duty to alter its
law, with a view to prohibiting its subjects from trading with the block-
aded ports, but to have done so would have beenr, as it seems to me, in
direct contravention of a fundamental principal of neutrality — namely,
that a neutral power shall not, with a view to a pending war, except so
far as may be necessary for the fulfillment of its own obligations as a
neutral, alter its law, or make new regulations, having the object or
effect of favoring one belligerent at the expense of the other. But that
such would have been the effect of an alteration of the law, as desired
by the United States, by passing an act to make blockade-running penal,
is manifest. The United States, as between them and their adversaries,
were masters of the seas, and had their ports open, and could, therefore,
freely receive the cargoes of arms and munitions of war which were
being daily supplied to them. To the confederate government the block-
ade-runner afforded the only means of obtaining the arms with which
he was to fight for independence. An alteration of the law would have
been to i>lace him helpless in the power of his enemy. Would it have
been consistent with neutrality to alter the law at such a time, and with
the certainty of such a result ? The right of a belligerent to exclude
the commerce of a neutral from a blockaided port is too well established
to be shaken ; but it is the most odious and arbitrary form in which the
freedom of the neutral can be interfered with, and I can see, therefore.
'11 Juris. N, S., p. 400.
• 1 Law Rep., Adm. and Eccl.» 1.
OPINIONS OF SIR ALEXANDER COCKBURN. 361
no reasou why a government should interfere to make the exercise of
the power more productive of detriment to the commerce of its subjects
than it necessarily carries with it at present. But if any alteration of
the law is to take place, it should be in time of peace, not when the
change would prove fatiil to one of the combatants, and insure victory
to the other.
Earl Eussell put the matter on the right footing when, in answer to a
remonstrance of Mr. Adams, on the 17th of May, 1862, he replied:
If the British government, by virtue of the prerogative of the Crown, or by authority
of Parliament, had prohibited and could have prevented the conveyance in British mer-
chant-ships of arms and ammunition to the Confederate States, and had allowed the
transport of such contraband of war to New York and to other Federal ports, Her
M^jdity^s government would have departed from the neutral position they have as-
sumed and maintained.
If, on the other band, Her Majesty's government had prohibited and could have pre-
vented the transport of arms and ammunition to both the contending parties, they
would have deprived the United States of a great part of the means by which they
have carried on the war. The arms and ammunition received from Great Britain, as
well as from other neutral countries, have enabled the United States to fit out the for-
midable armies now engaged in carrying on the war against the Southern States, while,
by means of the blockade established by the Federal Government, the Southern States
have been deprived of similar advantages.
The impartial observance of neutral obligations by Her Majesty's government has
thus been exceedingly advantageous to the cause of the more powerful of the two con-
tending parties.^
The same reason applies to the frequent ase of the ports of the Ba-
hamas and Bermuda as entrepdts for the blockade-running cargoes, and
the transshipment of the latter into lifrht'Cr craft. There was nothing
in all this in any way contrary to law. Vessels with cargoes of arms
intended for the Southern ports had a perfect right to enter, remain,
and quit, when and as they thought proper. If this traffic, suddenly
springing up, soon assumed such large dimensions, the cause was to be
found in the forced interruption of the trade with the Southern ports
through the blockade. Here again a neutral government could not be
called upon to make new laws to prevent the neutral trader from avail-
ing himself of such means, not inconsistent with law, as circumstances
placed at his dispell in seeking to compensate himself for the re-
straints imposed on his commercial freedom. When the ordinary course
of things is disturbed by intervening force, the tendency is always, in
some shape or other, to a restoration of the equilibrium. Unfortunate-
ly, instead of seeing in all this only the natural effect of commercial
speculation and enterprise, the United States Government, in the ex-
citement of the time, saw in it nothing but hostility to the cause of the .
Union. Impressed with this idea, Mr. Seward writes to Mr. Adams, on
the 11th of March, 1862 :
Information derived from our consul at Liverpool confirms reports which have
reached ns that insurance companies in England are insuring vessels eu^a^ed in run-
ning our blockade, and even vessels c&rrying contraband of war. This is, lu effect, a
combination of British canitalists, under legal authority, to levy war against the
United States. It is entirely inconsistent with the relations of friendship which we,
on our part, maintain toward Qreat Britain ; and we cannot believe that Her Britan-
nic Majesty's government will regard it as compatible with the attitude ef neutrality
proclaimed by that government. Its effect is to prolong this struggle, destroy legiti-
mate commerce of British subjects, and excite in this country feelings of deep aliena-
tion.
Pray bring this subject to the notice of Earl Russell, and ask for intervention in some
form which will be efficient.
Our consuls in London and Liverpool can furnish you with all the information you
wiU require. »
' United States Documents, vol. i, pp. 5:{(>, 537.
- United States Documents, vol. i, p. 720.
362 ARBITRATION AT GENEVA.
Mr. Adams, in a letter to Lord Bussell of the 30tb of December, 1SG2,
complaius in earnest language :
It is a fact that few persons in £n(r]and wiU now be bold enon^^U to deny, first, that
vessels have been built in British ports, as well as manned by Her Majesty's subjects,
with the design and intent to carry on war against the United States; secondly, that
other vessels owned by British snbjects have been and are yet in the constant practice
of departing from British ports, laden with contraband of war and many other com-
modities, with the intent to break the blockade and to procraHtinate the war ; thirdly,
tliat such vessels have been and are insured by British merchants in the commercial
towns of this kingdom, with the understanding that they are dispatched for that ille-
gal purpose. It is believed to be beyond denial that British snbjects have been, and
continue to be, enlisted in this kingdom in the service of the insurgents, with the in-
tent to make war on the United States, or to break the blockade legitimately estab-
lished, and to a proportionate extent to annul its purpose. It is believed that persons
hi^h in social position and in fortune contribute their aid, directly and Indirectly, in
building and equipping ships of war as well as other vessels, and furnishing money b»
well as goods with the hope of sustaining the insurgents in their resistance to the Gov-
ernment. To that end the port of Nassau, a colonial dependency of Great Britain, has
been made, and still continues to be, the great entrep6t for the storing of supplies which
are conveyed from thence with the greater facility in evading the blockade. In short,
so far as the acts of these numerous and influential parties can involve them, the
British people maybe considered as actually carrying on war against the United Stat-es.
Already British property valued at eight millions of pounds sterling is reported to havr
been captured by the vessels of the United States for attempts to violate the blockade,
and property of far greater value has either been successfully introduced or is now
stored at Nassau awaiting favorable opportunities.'^
But that these were commercial speculations, and had no reference
to any political sympathies, is plain, from the following letter from Mr.
Morse, the United States consul-general, to Mr. Adams, of the 24th of
the same month. After mentioning the different steamers engaged in
the blockade-running, he says:
The ownership of these steamers, the cargoes they carrj^ out, and the manner of con-
ducting the trade, is a question of much interest to Americans. During the earlj
stages of the war the trade was carried on principally by agents sent over from the
Confederate States, aided by a few mercantile houses and active sympathizers in this
country. These agents, with their friends here, purchased the supplies, and procured
steamers, mostly by charter, and forwarded the goods.
But by far the largest portion of the trade, with perhaps the exception of that in
small-arms, is nmCj and for a long time has been, under the management and control of
British merchants. It is carried on principally by British capital, in British ships, and
crosses the Atlantic under the protection of the British flag.
Parties come from Richmond with contracts made with the rebel government bj
which they are to receive a very large percentage above the cost in confederate porte
of the articles specifled. British merchants become interested in these contracts, and
participate in their profits or loss. I have seen the particulars of one such contract
drawn out in detail, and have heard of others.
There are good reasons for believing that a large portion of the supplies more recently
sent to the aid of the insnrgentshns beenseut by merchants on their own account. Several
will join together to charter a steamer, and make up a cargo independent of all con-
tractors, each investing as much in the enterprise as he may deem expedient, according
to his zeal in the rebel cause, or his hope of realizing profit from the speculation.
Again : some one will put up a steamer to carry cargo to a rebel port at an enormooii
rate of freight, or to ports on the Atlantic or Gulf coast, such as Bermuda, Nassau.
Havana, Matanioras, &.C., at a less freight, to be from there reshippedto such Sonthen
ports as appears to aflbrd the best opportunities for gaining an entrance. Ships bonnd
on these voyages are, of course, not advertised, or their destination made known to
the public. Their cargoes are made up of individual shipments, on account and risk
of the shippers, or go into a Joint-stock concern, on account and risk of the company,
each member thereof realizing profit or suffering loss in proportion to the amount be
invested in the adventure. Both steamers and cargoes are often, if not generally,
insured in England ^* to go to America tcith liberty to run the blockade"^
The views of Her Majesty's Government were set forth in a letter
from Earl Eussell to Mr. Adams :
With regard to the "systematic plan" which you say has been pursued by Her Maj-
» United States Documents, vol. i, p. 729.
Ubid., p. 731.
OPINIONS OF SIR ALEXANDER COCKBURN. i]6S
<*»ty*s H»il)ject» "to violate the blockade by steady effortii/' there are some reflections
Avhieh I am surprised have not occurred to you.
The United States Government, on the allegation of a rebellion pervading from nine
to eleven States of the Union, have no\\', for more than twelve months, endeavored to
maintain a blockade of three thousand miles of coast. This blockade, kept up irregn-
iarl3", but wheu enforced, enforced severely, has seriously injured the trade and manu-
factures of the United Kingdom. Thousands of persons are now obliged to resort to
the poor-rate for subsistence, owing to this blockade. Yet, Her Majesty^s government
have never sought to take c'ul vantage of the obvious imperfections of this blockade, in
order to declare it ineffective. They have, to the loss and detriment of the British
nation, scrupulously observed the duties of Great Britain toward a friendly State. But
when Her Majesty's government are asked to go beyond this, and to overstep the existing
powers given to them by municipal and international law for the purpose of imposing
arbitrary restrictions on the trade of Her Majesty's subjects, it is impossible to listen
to Ruc'h suggestions. The ingenuity of persons engaged in commerce will always, in
some degree, defeat attempts to starve or debar from commercial intercourse an ex-
tensive coast inhabited by a large and industrious population.
If, therefore, the Government of the United States consider it for their interest to
inflict this great injury on other nations, the utmost they oau expect is that European
iiowers shall respect those acts of the United States which are within the limits of the
law. The United States Government cannot expect that Great Britain should frame
new statutes to aid the Federal blockade, and to carry into etl'ect the rcstrictious ou
4'ouimerce which the iruited St^ites, for their own purposes, have thought fit to institute,
and the application of which it is their duty to confine within the legitimate limits of
iuteruational law.'
It is hardly worth while to dwell on the attempts made to show par-
tiality and unfair conduct on the part of the authorities at Nassau.
A Mr. Heyliger appears to have been sent there sis the agent of the
confederates, and a letter from him to the confederate government of
December 27, 18G1, is quoted in the case of the United States,^ in which
it is said, " We have succeeded in obtaining a very important modifica-
tion of the existing laws, viz, the privilege of breaking bulk and trans-
shipment.'^ It is said in the case of the United States —
That modification was all that the insurgents wanted. That privilege converted the
port of Nassau into an insurgent port, which could not be blockaded by the naval
forces of the United States. Further stay of the United States vessels of war was
therefore useless. The Uuited States ask the tribunal to find that this act, being a
I>enDt8siou from the British authorities at Nassau, enabling a vessel chartered by the
insurgents, and freighted with articles contraband of war, to diverge from its voyage
and to transship its cargo in a British port when not made necessary by distress^ was a
violation of the duties of a neutral.
I i>ass by the admission contained iu this passage that Nassau was
being used by the Uuited States vessels of war as a post of observation
for the detection and pursuit of vessels carrying contraband of war to
the South; in other words, as a base of naval operations.
The explanation of the passage in Mr. Ileyliger's letter, which I find
in the British counter case and appendix, is simple enough. The cus-
toms regulations of the colony forbade the transshipmentof goods in its
X)ort8 or waters, unless they were landed for examination by the customs
officei*s. There was nothing, however, to prevent their being at once re-
shipped in other vessels after being so landed and examined, and the
receiver-general of the colony had power to grant permission for dis-
pensing with the landing of the goods if he thought fit. It would seem
that this' permission had been customarily granted, as a matter of
course, in the case of goods in transit. In conformity with this practice
Messrs. Adderly & Co., of Nassau, applied to the receiver-general,
shortly before the date of Mr. Heyliger's letter, for permission to trans-
ship the cargo of the Eliza Bonsell, stated to consist of assorted mer-
chandise, to another vessel, the Ella Warley, bound ostensibly for St.
John's, New Brunswick.
' United States Documents, vol. i, p. 72:1.
- Page '22i\.
364 ARIUTRATIOX AT (;ENEVA.
The receiver-general, having regard probably to the destination of
the Ella Warley, St. John's being the port for which blockade-rannins:
vessels were in the habit of taking clearances, refused to give the osnal
permission unless authorized by the governor. Thereupon Messrs. Ad-
derly wrote to tiie governor explaining that all they asked for was to he
dispensed from the formality of landing the goods on the wharf, and
then reshipping them, a requisition which had on previous occasions
been done away with by the customs authorities; and stating that
the receiver-general admitted that he had no ground for his objection,
" being fully of opinion that the object of the law could be carried oat,
and the cargo as easily checked from one vessel to another as if landed."'
The governor, with the consent of his council, granted the permission,
and indeed there seems no sufficient reason why he should have refused
it. He could not in any case have prevented the goods being pat on
board the Ella Warley ; he could only insist on their being landed on the
wharf in transitu. Mr. Ileyliger, who had but just arrived in the colony,
probably misunderstood the nature of the concession, and may not have
been sorry to exaggerate it to his superiors. The jMirmission having
been granted in the case of the Eliza Bousell, may possibly have also
been given in other cases, but it is difficult to understand on what prin-
ciple it can be alleged to constitute a "violation of the duties of a
neutral.^^ .
Complaint is made that the vessels engaged in running the blockade,
and leaving Nassau for that purpose, were allowed to clear out for St.
John's, New Brunswick, though it was well known that their destination
was a southern port. But there is no means of contix>lling vessels in
this respect. The nature and operation of a clearance is explained in
the British case :
Clearance signifies the linal official act by ^liicb the proper officer of customs notifif
that all has been done which the law requires to be done before the departore of ship
and cargo. It is purely for customs purposes, the main objects being to protect Uie
revenue, and to secure statistics as to the numl^er of ships and quantity of merchandise
entering and leaving British ports. As there are in ordinary times no restrictions or
duties on the export of articles of any kind from the United Kingdom, no rigid inspee-
tion is exercised by the customs authorities over the general nature of Uie goods shipped
on board vessels in British ports. The attention of the authorities is mainly directed
to the shipment of those articles on which an exemption from import duties otherwise
payable, or a remission of import duties already paid, is claimed on the ground of tiieir
exportation abroad. The object of the inspection is to ascertain that the goods of thist
nature stated to be thus exported are really shipped and carried away on board the
vessel. The agents who ship such goods furnish the customs department with state-
ments in the form of shippiog-bilis, of the amount and nature thereof, and it is the
duty of the examining officer to ascertain that the packages placed on board the veasel
correspond with these statements. Before starting on his voyage the master of the
vessel is bound to produce a paper called a content, giving the number and description
of any packages of merchandise shipped on boanl, on which exemption from or remis-
sion of duty is claimed, but merely specifying any other articles as •* sundry packages
of free goods." The master has also to produce a victualing bill, enumerating the
amount of stores liable to duty, (such as tea, spirits, tobacco, and the like,) which be
has shipped for the use of his crew. These papers are compared with the shipping
bills and certificates already in the possession of the customs authorities, and if they
are found to tally, a label, signed and senled by the examining officer and collector, is
affixed to the victualing bill and certificates, and these papers are delivered to the
master as his clearance.
It is true that, for statistical purposes, the agents to the master of the vessel are re-
quired to furnish to the customs department a list, called a manifest, giving the nnmber
and description of all packages of goods, whether liable to duty or not, shipped on
board the vessel, and the shipping agents or exporters are also required to furnish speci-
fications of all goods, described by the master on his content as *^snndry packages of
free goods," and subsequently further dejjcribed in his manifest ; but the law does not
' British Appendix, vol. v, p. 30.
OPINIONS OF SIR ALEXANDER COCKBURX. 365
re<iuire that theso particulars should be given before the vessel saiU; it is complied
with provided they be furnished within six days after she has cleared.
Previously to the year 1867, no penalty was attached by law to the departure of a
vessel for foreign ports without a clearance provided she was in ballast, and had on
board no stores except such as were free or had paid duty. Since that date, however,
clearance has been required in these as well as in other cases.
A clearance may not be granted uutil the master of the ship has declared the nation
to which he afHrms that slip belongs; and a ship attempting to x^roceed to sea without
a clearance may be detained until such a declaration has been made. The officer, how-
ever, cannot question, or require proof of, the truth of the declaration. As to the des-
tination of ships sailing from the United Kingdom, the ofilcers of customs have little
or no means 01 ascertaining this beyond the information which the master or owner
•jives on entering outwards. It frequently happens that a vessel entered outwards for
•A Specified destination changes her course when at sea, and proceeds to a different des-
tioatioD. There are no means of preventing thls.^ •
If these vessels had cleared out for a confederate port, they must
equally have been allowed to leave. It has been argued that the vessels
employed iu couveyiug contraband of war for the use of the confederate
government should have been considered as transports, and therefore as
contravening the foreign-enlistment act, and therefore that they should
have been stopped. If this is meant to be said figuratively, it comes to
uothing. If it is meant that the vessels were actually built or fitted out
for, and made over to, the confederate government, to be used by them
as transports — in which case only they would come within the foreign-
enlistment act — the answer is, that there is not only no evidence of any-
thing of the kind, but there is every reason to believe that the contrary
is the ca43e, and that they remained the property of the original owners,
who found the employment of them in this trade profitable, notwith-
standing that many of them fell into theiiands of the blockading ships.
It is plain, from the letter before citeci, that this is the view that Mr.
Consul Morse took of the matter.
Angry complaints are made in the American documents of the sym-
pathy exhibited at Njissau,and in several other British col- sympathy .nb-.i
onies, toward the confederate cause. **"'"
AVhen it is asserted, in particular instances, that this favorable feel-
ing toward the insurgent States led to partiality', inconsistent with a
due observance of neutralitj' on the part of the authorities, it will be
better to deal with these charges when I come to the particular cases
in which it is alleged to have occurred. As regards the inhabitants of
these places generally, it seems to me that it was quite natural that, at
the Bahamas and Bermuda, and possibly in the other West India
Islands, the tide of public feeling should run strongly in favor of the
confederates. These colonies lay more or less contiguous to the south-
ern coast. What trade they had had before with the United States
was principally with the South. But what was more likely to operate
in favor of the latter was the active trade which the transmission of
ships and cargoes to the southern ports suddenly brought to them.
Human nature is pretty much the same at Nassau as it would be under
similar circumstances at London or New York. We are apt to look
with favor on those who bring us business or promote our w^ealth, or
who in any way cause the sun of prosperity to shine upon us. No gov-
ernment can control, or ought to endeavor to control, or to interfere
with, public feeling in such cases, if leading to no violation of the law.
Independently, however, of any influence exercised by local interest,
I cannot doubt that, as the great contest went on, and while the infe-
riority of the means of upholding it on the part of the South became
more and more manifest, their gallantry and courage shone out the
more brightly in continuing the unequal struggle, there did arise the
* British Ajiptnclix, vol. v, p. 30.
366 ARBITRATIOX AT (iENEVA.
sympathy which enduring courage struggling with adversity never fails
to inspire. And I cannot help thinking that the haughty and ofiensive
tone assumed by many of the representatives of the United States
helped greatly to turn the tide of public feeling in favor of their oppo-
nents. Men refused to see in the leaders of the South the "rebels'*
and the " pirates ^ held up by the United States to public reprobation,
and thus the eifect which a more generous appreciation of the position
and qualities of their adversaries might have had in neutralizing tLie
feeling in their favor, tended only to increjise it.
Be this as it may, I assert that, whatever individual persons may
have thought or felt, Great Britain as a nation was throughout the
contest between the Northeri» and Southern States honestlv desirous
that perfect neutrality should be maintained, and that the Queen^s gov-
ernment, from the beginning to the end, were animated by the honest
desire faithfully to discharge the duty which their position as the min-
isters and servants of a great sovereign, pledged to neutrality in tbe
face of the world, imposed upon them.
Having thus passed in review the general heads of complaint put
Amiirntioniopar forward lu thc plcadittgs of the United Stiites, for the par-
ucuur vesreu. p^g^ ^f viudicatiug the British government and British au-
thorities from what appear to me unfounded and unjust aspersions, I
proceed to the cases of the individual ships, as to the equipment of
which it is alleged that the British government were wanting in dili-
gence.
But it is here, when we proceed to apply, practically, the test of due
diligence to the conduct of the government, that the anomaly of the
present position, to which [ adverted in the outset, makes itself sensi-
bly felt. As 1 have shown upon abundant authority, the equipping
of a ship for sale to a belligerent, in the way of trade, was at tbe
time in question no offense against the Liw of nations, or a viola-
tion of neutrality, though it was an offense against the municipal Liw of
Great Britain. The government of Her Majesty, though like every other
government it was bound to prevent any known violation of the law,
was under no obligation to a belligerent to enforce the law for his ben-
efit, and incurred no liability to such belligerent for not doing so, so
long as the law was not enforced against the latter anymore than
against his enemy. Any hostileexi)edition permitted to leave tbe shores
of Great Britain, which the government, by the exercise of reasonable
diligence, could have prevented, would have amounted to a breach of
neutrality, for which it might have been held responsible. But for the
mere equipping of a vessel, by ship-builders, in the way of trade, though
intended for a belligerent, the government would not be re«iK)nsible;
and though every government is no doubt bound to prevent infractions
of the law, so far as it knows of them and can prevent them, still this
general duty which it owes to its own country is obviously a very dif
ferent thing from the responsibility it incurs as representing the state, in
relation to a foreign power. In the one case, the maintenance of the
law is left to the ordinary authorities, and to the individuals who have
occasion to seek protection or redress from its operation ; in the other,
the action of the government by its immediate officers becomes neces-
sary for its own protection. No doubt, as a matter of comity, and from
a sense of justice, a government would pay ready attention to the rep-
resentatives of a belligerent power complaining of an infraction of the
municipal law in a matter in which the interests of the belligerent were
affected — more especially in a matter lying, as it were, on the confines
of municipal and international law — and would call into action the pre-
OPINIONS OF SIR ALEXANDER COCKBURN. 367
ventive powers it possessed, to keep tbe law from being broken. But,
under such circumstances, it might fairly leave to the representative of
the belligerent to make out a case for the application of the law, just as
it is left so to do to an ordinary individual who desires to put the law
in motion in order to obtain redress on his own ^behalf. Hence, no
doubt, had ariseif the practice, common to the governments both of the
United States and Great Britain, of requiring the representative of a
belligerent power, invoking the aid of the government, to produce evi-
dence by which the action of the executive, when brought to the test of
judicial inquiry, can be justified and upheld.
Jt is obvious that the degree of active diligence which could reason-
ably be expected from a government under such circumstances, is very
different from what it would be bound to exercise in order to prevent a
violation of neutrality according to the law of nations, for which, as a
government, it would be properly responsible to a belligerent state.
It seems to me that though by the treaty of Washington it must be
taken that Great Britain was bound to use due diligence to prevent the
equipping of ships as a matter of neutral obligation, and not as a mere
matter of municipal law, yet that, in determining whether due diligence
was then applied or not, we must look to the relative position of the par-
ties at the time, and insist on no more than would have satisfied the
exigency of obligations then existing. Morally, in judging the conduct
of the government of that time, we are assuredly bound to do so.
CASE OF THE FLORIDA. The norid..
The following are the facts relating to the Florida, as they are
to be gathered from the cases, counter cases, arguments,
and printed evidence supplied to the tribunal : AtL.verpooL
This vessel, originally named the Oreto, was no doubt built for war.
The contract for her construction was made by Bullock, who, it has since
become known, (though at the time the fact was altogether unknown to
Her Majesty's government,) was an agent of the Confederate States,
with Fawcett, Preston & Co., of Liverpool, by whom the contract for
tbe construction of the hull was again sublet to Miller and Sons, ship-
builders at that port. The attention of Mr. Dudley, the United States
consul at Liverpool, was attracted to the vessel as early as the end of
January', 1862. In dispatches to Mr. Seward, of the 24th of January and
4th of February, he calls attention to this steamer under the name of
the Oritis, or Oretis. In the letter of the 24th of January he says : " She
is reported for the Italian government, but the fact of the machinery
being supplied by Fawcett & Preston, and other circumstances con-
necteid with it, make me suspicious, and cause me to believe she is in-
tended for the South."^
On the 4th of February he writes to Mr. Seward as follows :
In my last two dispatches I called attention to the iron screw steam gnn-boat Oreto,
or Oritis, being built at Liverpool, and fitted oat by Fawcett, Preston &. Co. 8he is
now taking in her coal, and appearances indicate that she will leave here the latter
part of this week without her armament. The probabilities are she will run into some
Bmall port and take it and ammunition on board. This of itself is somewhat suspicious.
They pretend she is built for the Italian government ; but the Italian consul here in-
forms ns that he knows nothing about it, has no knowledge whatever of any vessels
being built for his government. There is much secrecy observed about her, and I have
been unable to get anything definite, but my impressions are strong that she is intended
for the Southern Confederacy. I have communicated my impressions and all the facts
to Mr. Adams, onr minister at London. She has one funnel, three masts, bark-rigged,
eight port-boles for guns on each side, and is to carry sixteen guns.^
* United States Documents, vol. vi, p. 214.
^ Ibid., p. 215.
368 ARBITRATION AT GENEVA.
It thus appears that, by the 4th of February, Mr. Dudley had put Mr.
Adams in x)osse8sion of such information as he possessed concerDin^
this vessel. The letter of Mr. Dudley to Mr. Adams has not been pub-
lished among the American documents; but it is evident that Mr. Adams
did not consider the information communicated to him sufficient to war-
rant any application to Her Majesty's government, for none was made
by him on the subject of this vessel till the receipt of another letter from
Mr. Dudley, a fortnight later. Indeed, Mr. Dudley expressly states tbat
he- was unable to get anything definite about the vessel. He speaks
only of suspicions and impressions. lie had nothing to communicate
beyond reports and rumors.
Amongst other things stated by Mr. Dudley, he mentions that he had
made inquiry of the Italian consul at Liverpool, who had told him that
he knew nothing of the vessel. But if, as was stated by the builders,
the order for the vessel had been given by Thomas Brothers, of Palermo,
the Italian consul at Liveri^ool might have remained without informa-
tion on the subject ; and Mr. Dudley, while mentioning what had passed
between him and the Italian consul to Mr. Seward, does not appear to
have mentioned it to ^Ir. Adams. The fa<*.t was unknown to Her
Majesty's government.
On the 17th of February, Mr. Dudley again writes to Mr. Adams
about the Oreto as follows :
The gini-boat Oreto is stiU at tlii« port. She if« makiu^ a trial trip iu the river to-<la,T.
No aruiainent as yet on board. She has i)ut up a second smoke-stack since I ^TTote
.you. iShe therefore has two funnels, three niasts, and is bark-rigged. I am now in-
formed that she is to carry eight rifled cannon, and two long swivel-giins on pivots so
arranged a§ to rake both fore and aft. No pains or expense has been spared in her con-
strnction, and when fully armed she will be a formidable and dangerous craft; Id
strength and armament <iuite equal to the Tusearora, so I should judge from what I
learn.
Mr. Miller, who built the hull, says he was employed by Fawcett, Preston & Co.,
and that they own the vessel. I have obtained information from many difl'erent
sources, all of which ^oes to show that she is intended for the Southern Confederacj*.
I am satisfied that this is the case. She is ready to take her arms on board. I canoot
learn whether they are to be shipped here or at some other port. Of course she is in-
tended as a privateer. When she sails, it will be to bum and destroy whatever she
meets with bearing the American flag.'
In a postscript he adds, ''The gun-carriages for the Oreto, I have just
learned, were taken on board on Friday night last, in a rough state, aud
taken down in the hold. Eraser, Treuholni & Co. have made advances
to Fawcett, Preston & Co., and Miller the builder.''
This statement as to the gun-carriages was wholly incorrect.
Having received the letter of Mr. I)udley, Mr. Adams writes, iuclos
ing it to Lord Kussell, as follows:
Leg ATI ox of tiik Uxhed Statks,
LondoUy February 18, 1S02.
My Loiti) : I have the honor to tsiibniit to yoiir eonsideration the copy of an extract
of a letter addressed to me by the consul of the United States at Liverpool, goiog to
show the preparation at that port of an armed steamer evidently intended for hostile
operations on the ocean. From the evidence furnished in the names of the persom
stated to be concerned in her constniction and outfit, 1 entertain little doubt that the
intention is precisely that indicated in the letter of the consul, the carryiiigon war
against the United States. The parties are the same which dispatched the &rinnda.
laden with contraband of war at the time, in August last, when I had the honor of
calling yonr lordship*s attention to her position, which vessel then succeeded in mnoiug
the blockade, and which now appears to be about again to depart on a like errand.
Should further evidence to sustain the allegations rcs^iecting the Oreto be held oe-
•
' British Appendix, vol. i, p. 1 ; United States Documents, vol. vi, p. 216.
OPINIONS OF SIR ALEXANDER COCKBURN. 369
■
cemary to effect the object of securing the interposition of Her Majesty's government,
I will make an effort to procure it in a more formal manner.
I have, &c.|
CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS.»
It is clear that, in the information thus conveyed to Lord Eassell,
there was, so far, nothing that could justify the seizure of the vessel.
Whether Mr. Dudley communicated to Mr. Adams the details of the in-
formation, to which he refers in general terms in his letter of the 17th,
or not, it is certain that no details were communicated to Her Majesty's
government. Nothing was specifically stated beyond the names of the
parties for whom and by whom the vessel had been built, and that the
former were the same as had, in the preceding August, dispatched the
Bermuda laden with munitions of war, with which she had succeeded in
running the blockade. Beyond this, all is suspicion, or, at best, the be-
lief of two zealous servants of the United States Government, with
only a general reference to information received by one of them from
^'many different sources," no details of which are given, or means
afforded of testing its accuracy or trustworthiness. It is obvious that,
if upon such a representation the Government had proceeded to. seize
the vessel, no court could have condemned her ; she must inevitably have
been released. Indeed, Mr. Adams himself seems to have been conscious
that his representation was not one on which the Government could act
without further materials ; for he ends his letter by saying, ^^ Should
farther evidence to sustain the allegations respecting the Oreto be held
necessary to effect the object of securing the interposition of Her Ma-
jesty's government, I will make an effort to procure it in a more formal
manner.'' ^ »
Tt is plain from this that, as late as the 18th of February, Mr. Adams
was not in possession of evidence on which he felt he had a right to call
for the interposition of the Government.
Nor does Mr. Dudley appear to have succeeded in obtaining any more
reliable information. On the 19th he writes again to Mr. Seward :
I do not think there is any donbt bnt what she (the Florida) is intended for the so-called
Southern Confederacy. Information from many different sources all confirm it, and
(M)me of the Southern Agents have admitted it. On Friday nieht last, her gun-car-
riages, in pieces, and some in a rongh state, were taken on board and put down in the
hold. It is nnderatood that her guns are at the foundery of Fawcett, Preston &. Co. It
id probable they may be taken on in boxes, and mounted after they get out to sea ;
but I have nothing to warrant this supposition, except the fact of the gun-carriages
being taken on board in the night-time, and in the manner they were. She wiU be
quite equal in strength and armament to the Tuscarora when completed. She made a
trial trip of twenty miles yesterday. I have made this vessel the subject of two dis-
patches to Minister Adams, and communicated to him all the particulars. ^
Here again, when Mr. Dudley professes to be in possession of the im-
portant fact that some of the Southern Agents had admitted that the
Oreto was intended for the Southern Confederacy, he communicated the
fapt only to Mr. Seward. No such information is given to Mr. Adams,
still less to the Government or to the local authorities, by whom, had it
been imparted to them, the information might have been followed up.
Both in this and his former letter Mr. Dudley's information as to
the gun-carriages having been conveyed on board the Oreto, with the
additionally suspicious circumstance of this having been done by night,
proved altogether mistaken. The report made by the custom-house
officers of Liverpool on the 2l8t of February shows that the vessel had
no gun-carriages on board. It further appears by reports made at a
^British Appendix, vol. i, p. 1 ; United States Documents, vol. y\, p. 216.
'United States Documents, vol. vi, p. 218.
24 B
370 ARBITRATION AT GENEVA.
later period that she had no gun-carriages on board when she finally
left Liverpool. She had none on board when she arrived at Nassau.
All that under the circumstances could possibly be asked for, on the
information conveyed to the government by Mr. Adams, was inquiry ;
and this Her Majesty's government at once proceeded to institute.
Immediately on the receipt of Mr. Adamses letter, Earl Russell took
the. necessary steps for causing local inquiries as to the Oreto to be made
by the officers to whose department it appertained to investigate sach
a matter. I^o clew having been given to the secret sources of informa-
tion which Mr. Dudley may have possessed, these officers could only
apply in the first instance to the builders of the vessel. The result of
their inquiries, as shown in the reports made by them, appeared per-
fectly satisfactory. The commissioners of customs, on the 22d of Feb
ruary, report to the treasury as follows :
On receipt of your lordship's reference, we forthwith instructed our coUector at
Liverpool to make inquiries in regard to the vessel Oreto, and it appears from his re-
port that she has been bnilt by Messrs. Miller & Sons for Messrs. Fawcett, Prestou &.
Co., engineers, of Liverpool, and is intended for the use of Messrs. Thomas Brothers,
of PalerUiO, one of that firm having frequently visited the vessel during the process of
building.
The Oreto is pierced for four guns ; but she has, as yet, taken nothing on board but
coals and baUast. She is not, at present, fitted for the reception of guns, nor are th«
builders aware that she is to be supplied with guns while she remains in. this oountrj.
The expense of her construction has ueen paid, and she has been handed over to Messrs.
Fawcett & Preston. Messrs. Miller &, Sons state their belief that her destinatioa is
Palermo, as they have been requested to recommend a master to take her to that pott,
and our collector at Liverpool states that he has every reason to believe that the Tea-
sel is for the Italian government.
We beg further to add, that special directions have been given to the officers at
Liverpool to watch l^e movements of the vessel, and that we will not fail to report
forthwith any circtimstance which may occur worthv of your lordship's oogoizauce.
THO. F. FREMANTLE.
GRENVILLE C. L. BERKELEY.'
The statement of the conimissiouers was based on the following re-
ports which they had received from their officers at Liverpool :
Mr. Edwards to the commissioners of oustams,
Liverpool, Febru4try *21, 1868.
HoNORABLR SiRS : The builders of the vesitel Oreto are Messrs. Miller Sc Sons. Mr.
Miller is the chief surveyor for tonnage. By their note inclosed the vessel is correctly
described, and I have every reason to believe that she is for the Italian governmeut.
and not for the Confederates.
It will be seen by the note of the surveyor, Mr. Morgan, which I annex, that, as yet,
she has nothing in her, so that the iutbruiation furnished to the. government is, so far,
incorrect.
Special directions have heen given to the officers to observe the movements of the
vessel, so that whatever takeM place can be made known to the board at any time.
Respectfully, «&e.,
S. PRICE EDWARDS.
Mr. Milh'r to Mr, Edwarde,
Liverpool, Febntary 21, I8i32.
Sir : We have built tlio dispatch- vo8vsel Oreto for Messrs. Fawcett, Preston d: Co.,
engineers, of this town, wlio are the agents of Messrs. Thomas Brothers, of Palermo, ior
whose use the vessel, we understand, has been built. She is pierced for four guns ; she
has taken nothing whatever on board ex:cept coals and ballast ; she is in no way litt«d
for the reception of guns, as yet ; nor do we know that she is to have guns whil^ iu
England. Mr. Thomas, of the lirm at Palermo, frequently visited the ship while she
was being built.
We have handed her over to the engineers, and have been paid for her. According to
the best of my information the present destitiation of the vessel is Palermo ; and we
have been asked to recommend a master to take her out to Palermo.
I remain, &c.,
T. MILLER.
'Bi'itisU Appendix, vol. i, p. It.
OPINIONS OF SIR ALEXANDER COCKBURN. 371
*
Mr, Morgan to Mr, Edwards.
February 21, 1862.
Sir: I bo^ to state that I have inspected the Oreto, now lying in Toxteth Dock,
agreeably with your directions issued to-day.
She is a splendid steamer, suitable for a diapatch-boat ; pierced for guns, but has
not any on board, nor are there any gun-carriages. Coals and ballast are all that the
holds contain.
Respectfully, &c.,
C. MORGAN, Collector.^
Here, therefore, was the assurance of a respectable firm of ship-build-
ers, by whom the vessel had been built, that it was understood by them
to have been built for Thomas Brothers of Palermo, whose agents Faw-
cett & Co. were, and that Mr. Thomas, a membc.r of the Palermo firm, had
frequently visited the ship while she was in the course of construction.
There was the statement of Mr. Edwards, an officer possessing the con-
fidence of the governnent, that he had every reason to believe that *the
vessel was built for the Italian government, and not for the confederates.
And from the report of Mr. Morgan, another government officer, as well
as from the statement of Mr. Miller, it further appeared that the repre-
sentation of Mr. Dudley, that the vessel " had received her gun-car-
riages and was ready to take her arms on board," was altogether incorrect,
there being no gun-carriages on board, or preparation of any sort for
the reception of guns.
. K, prior to the receipt of these reports, the evidence was insufficient
to justify the seizure or detention of the vessel, assuredly after them
Her Majesty's government would have acted most improperly if they
had directed their officers to adopt so arbitrary and unwarranted a pro-
ceeding.
It may be said that further inquiries should have been instituted.
Bnt of whom t Mr. Dudley, to whom every one who had conceived
any suspicions about the vessel, or heard any rumors respecting her,
appears to have run, and who of course was naturally disposed to
listen to any statements of the kind, made a point of not giving up the
names of his informants. No facts were ever communicated by Mr.
Dudley, either to the officers of the port or to the police of Liverpool.
The reports received from the commissioners of customs by the gov-
ernment were at once communicated to Mr. Adams. I cannot help
thinking that then was the time for putting Her Majesty's government
in possession of any information which had been obtained by Mr. Dud-
ley from so "many different sources," if that information could have
been made available, and for procuring the evidence which Mr. Adams
had expressed himself willing to make an effort to obtain. But nothing
furthet was heard from that gentleman till the 26th of March, ^up-
wards of a month later,) when the vessel had actually sailed. Either
Mr. Adams felt, after the reports made to the government by its officers,
that the zeal of Mr. Dudley had led him to form hasty conclusions,
or the information, though derived from "many different sources,"
turned out to be such as could not be relied on, or the evidence was
found not to be forthcoming. Even Mr. Dudley, whose untiring industry
»nd zeal in the discharge of his duty is certainly entitled to admi-
ration, does not appear to have supplied Mr. Adams during the whole erf
this period with any evidence of importance, or to have been required
by Mr. Adams to procure evidence upon which the government could
be called upon to act. It appears to me, under these circumstances,
singularly inconsistent and unjust to impute as matter of blame to Earl
Russell, as is done in the case of the ITnittd States, that he did not call
^ Britibh Appeudix, vol. i, p. 159.
372 ARBITRATION AT GENEVA.
upon Mr. Adams to famish farther evidence. Tbe governmeDt were
satisfied with the reports of their officers, having received which they
might reasonably, and without being liable to any impatation of want
of dne care, be of opinion that tbey ought to rest content, at all evenU
till something more should be brought forward. There was no reason
why they should doubt the written statement of Messrs. Miller, a firm
of known respectability, and one of the members of which was a gov-
ernment officer at the port. All the firms mentioned had carried on
business at Liverpool previously to the war, and it neither is, nor can
be, suggested that after the war had begun they had no business deal-
ings or transactions except with the Confederate States. At the same
time, as there was no doubt that the vessel was one which was capable
of being adapted to the purpose of war, it was right at such a conjanctnre
that a watchful eye should be kept on her. Directions to this effect
were accordingly given by the commissioners of customs, and the ves-
sel was diligently watched until the hour of her departure. If evi-
dence had been forthcoming to show that the government officers were
deceived, it was for Mr. Dudley, who professed to know where it was to
be found, to produce it. He would have been wholly wanting in his
duty if, being possessed of, or enabled to obtain such evidence, he had
failed to produce it. The fact that neither Mr. Dudley nor Mr. Adams
made any communication to the government till after the vessel had
sailed is, as it seems to me, very strong to show that no such evidence
t^as to be had.
If Mr. Dudley, to whom everybody appears to have resorted who had
anything to communicate, could find nothing on which his saperior,
Mr. Adams, ever ready to address requisitions or remonstrances to
Earl Bussell, could call for the intervention of Her Majesty's govern-
ment, it seems unreasonable to reproach the government with want of
due diligence in not making inquiries which, there is every reason to
think, could have led to no profitable result.
That the government were sincerely desirous of ascertaining the tme
character of this vessel, lest, possibly, any violation of neutrality should
be contemplated, is shown by this, that instead of resting satisfied with
the inquiries of the local officers, a belief having been expressed that
the vessel was being built for the Italian government. Lord Russell, on
the 26th of February, telegraphed to Sir James Hudson, the British
minister at Turin, desiring him to '^ ascertain and report whether a vessel
called the Ore to, now fitting out at Liverpool, is intended for the use of
the Italian government." * Sir James Hudson having referred to Sifjnor
Eicasoli, the minister for foreign affairs, telegraphs, in answer : " Eica-
soli tells me he has no knowledge whatever of the ship Oreio, but will
cause inquiry to be made."^ As the construction of such a vessel would
beloDg to the department of the marine, the fact of Signer Bicasoli
being unaware of any order having been ^ven for its construction
would, of course, not be conclusive. Indeed, Signer Bicasoli would not
take upon himself to negative the fact, but promised to make inquiry
on the subject. Unfortunately the result of the inquiry, which was that
the vessel had not been built for the Italian government, was not com-
municated to Sir James Hudson till the 25th of March, by which time
the Oreto had actually sailed. ^ The delay is believed to have been
owing to a change in the Italian ministry, which occurred aboat the
period in question ; for the answer to Sir James Hudson was given not
^ BritiAh Appendix, vol. i, p. 3.
« Ibid.
3Ibid., p. 6.
OPINIONS OP SIR ALEXANDER COCKBURN. 373
by Signor JKicasoli, bat by Signor Batazzi, who had succeeded him as
minister for foreign affairs. The delay is certainly not one for which
Her Majesty's government can in any way be held responsible. Until
the final answer to Sir James Hudson's inquiry had been given, the un-
certain answer of Signor Eicasoli could not, for the reason already
given — namely, that tiie matter was not one belonging to his depart-
ment— suffice to warrant the seizure or detention of the vessel. The ig-
norance of the Italian consul at Liverpool, who would not necessarily be
informed of an order given by the Italian government, especially if the
order had been given to Thomas Brothers of Palermo, could not make
it unnecessary to wait for Signor Eatazzi's answer. But the alleged
ignorance of the Italian consul was never communicated to the govern-
ment or to the local authorities. The information was given by Mr.
Dudley to Mr. Seward alone: in other words, was thrown away.
Mr. Dudley continued to keep a watchful eye on the Oreto. On the
27th of February he writes to Mr. Seward :
I have positive evidence that the Oreto gun-boat is intended for the southern confed-
eracy. She is to carry sixteen guns, is intended as a privateer, and, from present ap-
pearances, looks as if she would start on her cruise direct from this port. She has
taken ou board, this morning, seventy barrels of pork and beef, sixty sacks of navy and
Hix barrels of cabin bread, together with other provisions. The guns are to be shipped
at some other port in England. ^
Again on the Ist of March :
The day before yesterday I wrote the Department that I had obtained eridence that
the gun-boat Oreto was intended as a privateer, and that she was taking on her pro-
vlMions, JSlc. Since then she has been quite busy in taking on provisions. She has a
very large quantity, enough for a long cruise. They are getting as many southern
Bailors as they can. They want 130 men if they can procure them. The pilot has been
told they would leave to-day ; they are only waiting for the arrival of the West India
boat at Southampton. The captain who is to command her is to come by this boat. A
man by the name of Duguid, a Scotchman, is to take her out of this port as an English
vessel. Her transfer will be ma<le outside. The pilot thinks she wiU not come-back
to Liverpool after her trial trip. He is given to understand that she will go to the Isle
of Man, then to Holyhead, and some other ports, in one of which her guns will be
placed on board, and then she will enter at once on her cruise, and sail to the Mediter-
ranean. I have made arrangements by which I think intelligence of her movements
will be communicated to me. Yesterday I addressed letters to the consuls on the Med-
iterranean, and sea-ports of Spain, Portugal, and some others, advising them of this
vessel, and requesting them to report her if she should visit the port. The programme,
as laid down to the pilot, may not bo carried out, but it looks very prouablo when
taken in connection with the large supplies of provisions she has received on board. ^
The programme was not carried out. The Oreto neither went to the
Isle of Man, nor Holyhead, nor the Mediterranean ; nor did she get any
soathern sailors.
In the foregoing letters Mr. Dudley says he has " positive evidence ^
that the gun-boat Oreto was intended as a privateer, and for the south-
ern confi^eracy. If so, one is naturally induced to ask how it was that
this evidence was not communicated to Mr. Adams, by whom it might
immediately have been made available, instead of being only spoken of,
and that only in general terms, to Mr. Seward, who, being on the other
Bide of the Atlantic, could not, of course, make use of it to stop the ves-
sel. Is not the fair inference to be drawn from this and the other let-
ters of this gentleman, when we see how little resulted from them, that
anxious to show his zeal in the best light, he was more disposed to
address himself to the Secretary of State than to the minister in Lon-
don, and was somewhat apt to boast of possessing evidence, when, in
fact, he had nothing more than reports and conjectures, which, though
not inconsistent with probability, possessed no substantial or available
^ United States Docnmenta, vol. vi, p. 220,
374 ARBITRATION AT GENEVA.
reality ? Or was it that his information was obtained by sicret means
which would have stamped it with discredit if produced f
On the 5th of March Mr. Dudley again writes Mr. Seward :
Owing, as it is alleged, to the authorities here, the Oreto has been compelled to reg-
ister as an EngliHh vessel, and be regularly entered, &c. She entered on Satardftj
last for Palermo, in Sicily, and Jamaica, in the West Indies, W. C. Miller as owner, and
Duguid as commander. Her guns are not on board. She shipped her crew on Monday
last. Inclosed find a copy of an agreement given by the captain to one of the mea.
By it you will see ihat, while MiUer is the owner, Fawcett, Preston Sc Co. pay
the men. I have this document temporarily in my possession. The transfer of th«
vessel to the southern confederacy will not be made here, but at some place outside ;
it may be at Palermo or Bermuda, but most likely at some place in the Mediterranean,
as the pilot and all the men are now ziven to understand that they are first to go there.
The foreman in Fawcett, Preston & Co.'s told a young man, formerly in the employ of
that company, that the guns for the Oreto were to be shipped to Palermo, and put on
board at that place ; while another person in their foundery told one of my men that
the guns had been sent on in the steamer Bermuda, and were to be landed at Ber-
muda, and that the Oreto was to call there for them. Which of these, or whether either
of them, is true, I cannot tell; 'but what gives some strength to the latter statement is
the fact that on Saturday morning last, while the Bermuda was in the river, and jue(
before she sailed, several large cannon were placed on board of her. Both of these per-
sons in the employ of Fawcett, Preston & Co. stated that she was intended for the
confederates. The report is that she is to stop at Holyhead. I have sent a man there
to watch her, and made arrangements with one of the crew to give iuformation from
time to time ; made her the subject of a number of communications to Mr. Adams, and
on Friday addressed a circular to all our consuls in the Mediterranean, requesting
them to look after and report to tho Department in case she should visit the port. The
provisions of the Oreto are of the very best kind, and very ample, (the pilot say*
enough to last a year,) with abundance of wines and liquors for the officers. She
sailed from here last evening — the bill of entry says for Palermo aud Jamaica in b;U-
last. Her crew shipped consists of fifty-two men.*
The conflicting statements set forth in this letter show how uncertain
and unreliable were the reports which were conveyed to Mr. Dudley by
X>ersons who gave their conjectures as facts, as well as how little reli-
ance can be placed on the information of Mr. Dudley, and how readily
that gentleman accepted unauthentic rumors and reports as the founda-
tion of his statements. Mr. Miller was not registered as owner, bat, as
we shall see in a moment, Mr. John Henry Thomas, a merchant con-
nected with Palermo. In the agreement with the crew, printed in tlie
British appendix, the firm of Fawcett, Preston & Co. are mentioned
as " managing owners ;" no mention is made of Mr. Miller, either as
registered or managing owner.
The guns for the Oreto, which it was asserted were to go out in the
Bermuda, did not go out in that vessel.
Here, again, I cannot but repeat the observation that while facts
which, if true, were no doubt of importance, are communicated to Mr.
Seward, no information respecting them is given to Mr. Adams, by
whom they might have been turned to good account, or to the local
authorities, to whom they might have afforded a clue to get at the truth.
The statements made by the foreman and workmen of Fawcett, Preston,
& Co., if mentioned in the proper quarter, might have led to important
revdations.
The attention of the local authorities at Liverpool h^l not been with-
drawn from the vessel. They insisted, as appears from Mr. Dudley's
letter to'Mr. Seward, of the 5th of March, that the ship should be reg-
istered, no doubt as the condition of her dearance, and on the 3d of
March, she was registered accordingly, in the name of " John Henry
Thomas, of Liverpool, in the county of Lancaster, merchant,'' appar-
ently either a member of or connected with the Palermo firm — the said
> United States Doonmente, vol. vi, p. 221.
OPINIONS OF SIR ALEXANDER COCKBURN. 375
John Henry Thomas then making the following declaration, according
to the usual form :
I, the nndersigned John Henry Thomas, of Liverpool, county of L ancast^r, mer-
chant, declare aa follows : I am a nataral-hom British suhject, horn at Palermo, in
the island of Sicily, of British parents, and have never taken the oath of allegiance to
any foreign state. The ahove general description of the ship is correct. James Alex-
ander Duguid, whose certificate of competency or service is No. 4,073, is the master of
said ship. I am entitled to he registered as owner of sixty-foar shares of the said
ship. To the hest of my knowledge and helief no person or hody of persons other than
such persons or hodies of persons as are hy the merchant shipping act, 1654, qualified
to be owners of British ships, is entitled, as owner, to any interest whatever, either
legal or beneficial, in the said ship. And I make this solemn declaration, conscien-
tiously believing the same to be true.
JOHN H. THOMAS.
Made and subscribed the 1st day of March, 18J2, by the above-named John Henry
Thomas, in the presence of —
J. C. JOHNSTONE, Jr.,
RegUtrar of Shipping, Port of LiverpooV
•
The fact of Mr. Thomas, who thus declared himself to be a native of
Palermo, being registered as the owner, and his declaration that no per-
son or body of persons, other than such as were by the merchant ship-
ping act qualified to be owners of British ships, was entitled, as owner,
to any interest, legal or beneficial, in the vessel, were of course calcu-
lated to give support to the statement that the vessel was intended for
the firm of Thomas Brothers of that place.
On the ensuing day, the ith, the Oreto cleared out for Palermo and
Jamaica.
Attention is called in the case of the United States to the fact that,
" notwithstanding the alleged belief of the Liverpool officers that the
vessel was intended for the King of Italy, she was allowed t6 clear for
Jamaica in ballast." In fact, she cleared for Palermo and Jamaica ; not,
as would appear to be thus represented, for Jamslica alone. And it is to
be observed that the belief of Mr. Edwards, the collector, on this head
had been expressed as much as a month before, without, as it would
appear, any definite grounds ; and that, on the other hand, Messrs. Mil-
ler had stated that she had been built for the Palermo firm, and that
this statement had received confirmation from the registration of
Thomas as her owner.
Though represented as destined to be handed over to the Italian gov-
ernment, as a dispatch-boat, yet, if built in the first instance for a pri-
V ate firm, it was not impossible that it might be intended that she should
make a voyage to the West Indies before being parted with. Even jf
her being cleared for Jamaica, as well as Palermo, had been deemed a
circumstance of suspicion, it would not have justified a seizure of the
vessel, unless there was something to show that the clearance was ficti-
tious and fraudulent. It was only by subsequent events thdt this was
made to appear.
Attention is invited in the case of the United States to what is called
the " easy credulity ^ of these officicals, " who to the first charges of
Mr. Adams replied by putting forward the belief of the builders as to
the destination of the vessel, and who met his subsequent complaints .
by extracting from the custom-house records the false clearance which
Bullock and Eraser, Trenholm & Co. had caused to be entered there.''^
This representation appears to me very unfair. These officers, on re-
ceiving instructions from the commissioners of customs to make inquiry,
' British Appendix, vol. i, p. 10.
2 Case of the United States, p. 337.
376 ARBITRATION AT GENEVA.
had no one to resort to on the first occasion but the builders. They
could report no other than what the builders stated, which was that ^' to
the best of their information " the present destination of the vessel was
Palermo, as it had been built for the firm^^of Thomas Brothers, of that
place, and they had been asked to recommend a master to take her out
to Palermo. When it is said that on the second occasion the officers
extracted from the custom-house records the false clearance which Bul-
lock and Eraser, Trenholm & Go. had caused to be entered there, it is
again to be borne in mind that it was their duty to communicate the
entry of the ship's clearance to their superiors, according as it stood on
the register; besides, there is no evidence of the entry having been
made by Bullock or by Fraser, Trenholm, & Co. Indeed, that Bullock
can have been a party to the clearance is impossible. The recklessness
of the assertion is apparent from the fact that the clearance was eflfected,
and the entry of it made on the 3d of March ; whereas Bullock did not
arrive at Liverpool in the Annie Childs till the llth.^ If Fraser & Co.
were parties to the clearance the fact appears to have been unknown to
Mr. Dudley ; no suggestion of the kind is anywhere made by him. Still
less is there any ground whatever for supposing that the officers had any
knowledge or reason to suspect that the entry had been made by these
parties, or was in any respect false. The slur attempted to be cast on these
officers, who are said to have been deceived only " because they wished
to be deceived," appears to me, I must say, wholly unfounded, and one
cannot but regret to see imputations of this kind introduced into a case
stated on the part of the American Government.
But the question, it must never be forgotten, is not whether these
officers were unduly credulous ; the question on which the liability of the
British government must dependis whether there were facts ascertained,
or capable of being ascertained, upon which they would have been jus-
tified in taking possession of this vessel. It seems to me that there
were not.
Upon what evidence could Her Majesty's government have supported
the seizure, or asked for the confiscation of this vessel in an English
court of law ?
It is here all essential to keep in mind what it was which in a court of
law it would have been incumbent on the public prosecutor to establish,
in order to the condemnation of the vessel under the foreign-enlistment
act. He would have had in the first place to show that the vessel was
equipped for war. As to this, it is true there would have been no diffi-
culty. The vessel was pierced for guns, and had the hecessary fittings
for war ; she was represented as a dispatch-boat, which means a vessel
capable of being armed, and therefore of being used for war. Bat it
would have been further necessary to prove that the vessel was in-
tended to be used against a belligerent with whom Great Britain was at
peace. Here lay the difficulty ; for on this head the evidence totally
failed. Beyond surmises, suspicion, rumor, there was nothing, at least
nothing tangible or that could be made practicably available. Accord-
ing to the safe and sound rules of evidence, which happily prevail in an
English court of justice, as also in those of America, ^for the procedure
is the same in both,) the suspicions and impressions of Mr. Dudley would
have been wholly inadmissible ; the reports received by him from per-
sons who could not be brought forward would have been rejected as
mere hearsay; the gossip of the docks or the shipwrights' yards woald
have been at once excluded; insinuations, imputing to respectable
* IJDited States Documents, vol. vi, p. 223. '
OPINIONS OF SIR AX.EXANDER COCKBURN, 377
officers abaDdonmeDt of daty and complicity in crime, recklessly made
and unsupported by proof, would have been treated with proper disre-
gard. But, beyond this, what was there to show that this vessel wa«
intended for the service of the Confederate States ! Positively nothing ;
T?hile, on the other hand, there was the fact that an apparently respect-
able merchant, a native of Palermo, had registered himself as the owner ;
that the vessel had cleared for Palermo and Jamaica, and that her crew
had signed articles for a voyage to those places.
A circumstance to which the officers at Liverpool appear to have at-
tached considerable importance, was that the vessel, though pierced for
pins, had not even gun-carriages on board, and was wholly unarmed
and destitute of munitions of war. It might indeed be surmised by Mr.
Dudley that the vessel would receive her armament elsewhere, and the
sequel proved that his suspicions were well founded ; but on his own
showing he was wholly without evidence to prove that such was to be
the case. Nor must it be forgotten that the Florida was the first vessel
of war built in England for the Confederate States, and that the artifices
and tricks, to which the unscrupulous cunning of the confederate agents
did not hesitate to resort in violation of British neutrality, had not till
then been brought into play. The officers therefore finding, after hav-
ing unceasingly watched the vessel, that no attempt was made to arm
her, may not unreasonably have been satisfied that she was leaving on
an innocent voyage; or, at all events, without there being any intention
of arming her in British waters. To some minds this may seem " easy
credulity." To others, less astute, it may seem natural enough, and not
to be justly imputable to want of proper diligence or to intentional
neglect of duty.
If, indeed, the officers had become aware that another vessel had been
at that time taking on board gun-carriages and guns capable of being
put on board the Oreto after she had left the port, such a circumstance
would have been well calculated to excite suspicion thfat the professed
voyage to Palermo and Jamaica was but the pretended destination of
the vessel.
But nothing of the kind existed. M. Staempfii, who has insisted on
such a fact as one of the main grounds of a decision against the British
government, has here fallen into a very serious error. Instead of the
guns and their carriages being brought, as he has imagined, from Hartle-
pool to Liverpool and there shipped, they were, in fact, in order to avoid
suspicion, transmitted by railway, unknown to the authorities, from
Liverpool to Hartlepool, a port on the opposite coast of England, and
there shipped ; so that, while the officers at Liverpool knew nothing of
the shipment of the guns, the officers at Hartlepool knew nothing of the
sailing of the Oreto. To this it may be added that, though Mr. Dudley
was aware of the sailing of both the ships, and also of the transport of
guns and munitions of war from Liverpool to Hartlepool by Fawcett &
Co., to form part of the cargo of the Bahama, it never occurred to him
to imagine that there was any connection between the two vessels.
While he believed that the Oreto was about to proceed to the Mediter-
ranean, his letters show that he believed that the guns and munitions
of war sent to the Bahama were intended to run the blockade or be
taken to Bermuda or Nassau, to be theA transshipped for that purpose.
On the 7th of March he writes to Mr. Seward :
Some three weeks ago I was credibly iDformed that the same parties who had pur-
chased the Herald had bought the steamer Bahama; that they would load her with
munitions of war for the so-called southern confederacy, and either run the blockade
or else •land her cargo at Bermuda and run it into Charleston on smaller vessels. I
378 ARBITRATION AT GENEVA.
iDftfle inquiries to find her, and wrote to different oonsalates without obtaining any
information about her, or any vessel of that name. Yesterday we disoovered that Fftw-
cett, Preston &, Co. were shipping, by rail, cases containing shells and shot, also caa«
supposed to contain cannon and rifles, directed to '* Pioktord &. Co., West Hartlepool^
for shipment per steamer Bahama, for Hamburg.'^ This Hartlepool is the same plsoe
where the Bermuda, on her first trip, received a portion of her cargo. I have written
to the consuls at Leeds and London, and will endeavor to learn something more abont
this business.^ ,
On the 12tli of March :
The vice-consul at Newcastle writes me tliat there is a steamer, called the Bahsuna.
loading at West Hartlepool. He no doubt will advise the Department and give all tbe
particulars in reference to her. Fawcett, Preston & Co. are sending large quantities
of munitions of war to this vessel. They have already sent from Liverpool five han*
dred cases of shot and shells, upward of twenty tons of cannon, and abont four tons
of gun-carriages. This vessel will either run the blockade or land her cargo at Ber-
muda or Nassau, and have it ferried over in smaller vessels.'
When Mr. Dudley himself had not the shadow of a suspicion that
the guns sent over to Hartlepool to be loaded in the Bahama were iu-
tended for the Oreto, it would be unreasonable, even independently of
the mistake I have adverted to, to expect that the Liverpool officers
should have seen through the contrivance.
Now, indeed, we are enabled to see these things by the light of sub-
sequent events and since-acquired knowledge. We now know that the
Oreto was ordered by Bullock for the Confederate States, and that Bul-
lock was an agent of those States. But at that time these facts were
entirely unknown to Her Majesty's government, and the first of them,
at least, equally so to Mr. Dudley himself. Subsequent events have
shown that the suspicions entertained by Mr. Dudley and others were
well founded ; but though these suspicions may have had more or less
of probability, they were but suspicions, and were, therefore, incapable
of being made practically available. It is easy to be wise after the
event. ^^Uventm stultorum iiiagister^^ says the adage. The tribonal
must be on its guard against the impression likely to be produced by
the adroit way in which, in the United States pleadings, the story ot
these vessels is told without distinguishing what was formerly known,
and what is now known about them. But obviously nothing can be
more irrational or unjust than to say that Her M^esty's government
were bound to have seen things then as we see them now, or to seek the
condemnation of the Oreto on such evidence as was then forthcomingt
because subsequent events have made manifest what was then incapa-
ble of being proved.
The inability of Mr. Dudley to obtain any evidence as to the destina-
tion of the vessel becomes the more remarkable from the fact that,
owing to an accident, an additional three weeks from the clearing out
of the Oreto was afforded him for discovery. The vessel in going out,
after she had cleared, sustained some injury, and had to put back for
repairs, and was detained till the 22d of March, when she finally sailed.
Notwithstanding this favorable circumstance Mr. Dudley appears to
have been unable to obtain any proof of the vessel being intended for
the confederate service.
On the I2th of March he writes to Mr. Seward :
The steam gan-boat Oreto pnt back into the river yesterday again. This is the third
time she has come back. She is now jftichored in the stream. I am quite unable t»
accoant for her conduct. She, no doubt, is either waiting for her gnns or some peraan*
I was told, some two weeks ago, that a son them naval officer was to come over to take
command after they transferred her ; it is possible they are waiting for bis arrival'
^ United States Documents, vol. vi, p. 222.
3 Ibid., page 223.
3 Ibid.
OPINIONS OP SIR ALEXANDER COCKBURN. 379
Again, on the 15th, he writes :
The Oreto is still in the river, lying ofif Eggmont. She is eviilently not ready }br
sea, and is waiting for her gnns or else for some person. I was informed yesterday
that her gnns are to be placed on board before she leaves this port ; that they are to be
boxed, ts^en over to Birk^head, and there placed on tngs or lighters and conveyed to
the vessel. I have no means of verifying this statement. I have communicated it to
our minister at London. ^
According to these letters, and that of the 5th of March, previously
quoted, Mr. Dadlej had addressed several Sommunications to Mr.
Adams on the subject of the Oreto. Xo new facts can, however, have
been communicated which Mr. Adams deemed worthy of being sub-
mitted to Her Majesty's government, for no communication was re-
ceived from him. If Mr. Dudley was in possession of available infor-
mation, and failed to communicate it to Mr. Adams, or if such informa-
tion was communicated to Mr. Adams, but that gentleman omitted to
make Her Majesty's government acquainted with it, there would have
been a want of " due diligence" on the part of the agents of the United
States Government. But the known vigilance and assiduity of these
gentlemen renders such an imputation impossible.
On the 22d of March, the day the Oreto actually sailed, Mr. Dudley
writes thus to Mr. Adams :
The Oreto is still in the river. A flat-boat has taken part of her armament to her.
A part of the crew of the steamer Annie Childs, which came to this port loaded with
cotton, have just lefb my oflice. They tell me that Captain Bnllock is to command the
Oreto, and that four other oflicors for this vessel came over with them in the Childs.
The names of three are Young, Low, and Maffet or Moffit, the fourth was called Kddy ;
the first two are lieutenants, and the two last named midshipmen. They further state
that these officers dnriug the voyage wore naval uniforms ; that they came on the Childs
at a place called Smith ville, some twenty miles down the river from Wilmin^^n ; that
it was talked about and understood by sJl on board that their object in coming was to
take command of this vessel, which was being built in England for the southern con-
federacy. They further state that it was understood in Wilmingtgn, before they left,
that several war-vessels Were being built in England for the South. As they were
coming up the river in the Childs, as they passed the Oreto, she dipped her flas to the
Childs. 1 have had this last from several sources, and the additional fact tnat the
same evening, after the arrival of this steamer, a dinner was given in the Oreto to the
officers who came over in the Childs. I understand she will make direct for Madeira
and Nassau.'^
Here was, indeed, information of importance, but unfortunately it
came too late ; nor was it communicated to the Government or to the
local authorities till the ship had sailed. Had Mr. Dudley, instead of
contenting himself with writing to Mr. Adams, at once put the collector
of customs in communication with the part of the crew of the Annie
Ghilds to whom he refers in his letter, the statement thus* made, had it
appeared to be such as could be depended on, might have made it in-
cumbent on that officer to detain the vessel. But this obvious course
does not appear to have occurred to Mr. Dudley. He contented him-
self with writing to Mr. Adams. The opportunity was lost and the
vessel left.
It is further to be observed that a considerable portion of this infor-
mation turned out to be untrue. In what is stated in the foregoing let-
ter as to Oaptain Bnllock and four other officers being intend^ for th^
Oreto, Mr. Dudley was again misled by his informants, whose names as
usual are not given. Only one of these parties, a Mr. Low, went out in
her. Her master and crew were English, and shipped, as we have seen,
for the voyage to Palermo and Jamaica.
- ■ ■ > ■ — _^__^_^^^.^-— ^— —
1 United States •Documents, vol. vi, p. 224.
'United States Documents, vol. vi, p. 228 ; British Appendix, vol. i, p. 5.
380 ARBITRATION AT GENEVA.
On the 25th of March, having received Mr. Dudley's letter of the
22d, Mr. Adams, for the first time since his letter of the 18th of Feb-
ruary, a period of five weeks, again writes to Earl Russell on the sub-
ject of the Oreto :
My Lord : I have the honor to sabmit to your consideration the copy of a letter
received from the consul of the United States at Liverpool, touching the case of the
steam gun-boat Oreto, which I have already made the subject of a communication
some time ago. It is with great reluctance that I am driven to the con viction that the
representations made to yo|^r lordship of the purposes and destination of that vemel
were delusive, and that though at first it may have been intended for service in Sicily,
yet that such an intention has been long since abandoned in fact, and the pretense
has been held np only the better to conceal the trne object of the parties engaged.
That object is to make war on the United States. All the persons thus far knoyrn to
be most connected with the undertaking are either directly employed by the inear-
gents in the United States of America, or residents of Great Britain notoriously in
sympathy with and giving aid and comfort to them on this side of the water.^
The letter, which is of considerable length, then quits the subject of
the Oreto, and goes into the question of the assistance derived by the
insurgent States from England. It is so far important to the present
purpose, that it shows that, while making general complaints on the
part taken by British subjects in what was going on^Mr. Adams hadno
specific complaint to make on the score of the Oreto. He nowhere
complains of the Oreto not having been seized, nor had he ever called
upon the Government to seize her ; nor has his complaint reference to
the insufficiency of the existing municipal law to meet such a case as
that of the Oreto ; the complaint relates to the assistance derived by
the confederates from Great Britain in other ways — such as blockade-
running and importation of contraband of war^nd other articles— and
not to the special subject of the Oreto, or the foreign-enlistment act
At this time Her Majesty's government were not aware that the
Oreto had, in fact, sailed. Earl Russell, therefore, on receiving the
letter of Mr. Adams of the 25th, immediately directed that the treasury
and customs should be requested to take such steps as might be neces-
sary to ascertain whether the Oreto was equipped for the purpose of
making war on the United States, and if that fact could be proved, to
detain the vessel.^ He informed Mr. Adams that he had done so. In
reply to the general complaints of Mr. Adams, he observes :
Yon have not yonrself hitherto furnished me with evidence that any vessel has
received a hostile or warlike equipment in British waters, which has been afterward
used against the United States. The care that was taken to prevent the warlike
equipment of the Nashville in British waters must be familiar to your recoIlectioiL'
* The reference to the commissioners of customs led to the following
report of April the 4th :
Your lordships having referred to us the annexed letter from Mr. Hammond, trans
mitting, by desire of Earl Russell, a copy of a further letter, addressed by the United
States consul at Liverpool to Mr. Adams, the United States minister at this court, in
which it is again affirmed that the Oreto is being fitted out as a vessel of war for thfi
sonthern confederacy, and various statements are reported in support of that asser-
tion, and requesting that your lordships would instruct this board to give directions
that the Oreto might be vigilantlv watched, and that, if any armament prohibited by
the foreign-enlistment act should be discovered, the vessel might be at once detained;
We report —
That^ on the receipt of your lordships' reference, we directed our coUeotor at Liv-
erpool immediately to inquire into the farther aUegations made in regard to the Oreto,
and to govern himself in accordance with the instructions contained in Mr.
H ammond's letter, and, having received the report of the collector, we find that the
^ United States Documents, vol. vi, p. 227 ; British Appendix, vol. i, p. 4.
' British Appendix, vol. i, p. 5.
3 British Appendix, vol. i, p. 6 ; United States Documents, vol. vi, p. 30.
OPINIONS OF SIR ALEXANDER COCKBURN. 381
«
yesael in quefition was registered on the 3d ultimo, In the name of John Henry Thomas,
of Liverpool; as sole owner; that she cleare^on the following day for PiUermo and
Jamaica in baUast, but did not sail nntil thC 22d, the day on which the American
„ „ , , „ ^ — p «.«,» ensign.
nor any goods on board except the stores enumerated on the accompanying copy of
her victualing bill.
With regard to the statements in the letter of the consul, the collector further
reports that it is clear the passengers brought by the Annie Childs, the vessel therein
mentioned, which has recently arrived from one of the Southern States, were not
intended to form any portion of the crew of the Oreto, inasmuch as they were still in
Liverpool, and that the dipping of the ensign on board the latt-er vessel on the arrival
of the Annie Childs, as far as the collector had been enabled to ascertain, was intended
as a compliment to one of the Cunard steamers and another vessel which sainted the
Annie Childs on her arrival, the masters of the several vessels being known to one
another.
THO. F. FREMANTLE.
GRENVILLE C. L. BERKELEY.*
'It farther appears from statements made afterward in August, 1862,
by the officers of customs at Liverpool, vrhen evidence was being col-
lected, to be used in the proceedings instituted against the Oreto at
Nassau, that those officers never lost sight of the Oreto to the time of
her final departure ; and it also appears, from their statement and that of
the pilot who took the vessel out of the Mersey, that her condition was
to the last wholly incompatible with any present purpose of war.
Statement of Mr, Edward Morgan »
I am one of the surveyors of customs at this port. Pursuant to instructions I re-
ceived from the collector on the 21st of February in the present year and at subsequent
dates, I visited the steamer Oreto at various times, when she was being fitted out in
the dock, dose to the yard of Messrs. Miller & Sons, the builders of the vessel. I con-
tinued this inspection from time to time until she left the dock, and I am certain that
when she left the river she had no warlike stores of any kind whatever on board.
After she went into the river she was constantly watched by the boarding officers,
who were directed to report to me whenever any goods were taken on boara, but, in
reply to my frequent inquiries, they stated nothing was put in the ship but coals.
EDWARD MORGAN, Surveyor.
Statement of Mr, Henry Lloyd,
In consequence of instructions received from Mr. Morgan, surveyor,!, in conjunction
with the other three surveyors of the river, kept watch on the proceedings of the vessel
Oreto from the time she left the Toxteth Dock, on the 4th March last, till the day she
sailed the 22d of the same month. On one occasion I was alongside of her, and spoke to
Mr. Parry, the pilot, and the chief mate. Neither I nor any of the other river surveyors
saw at any time any arms or warlike ammunition of any kind taken on board, and we
are perfectly satisfied that none such was taken on board during her stay in the river.
H. LLOYD, Examining Officer,
Statetncnt on ocuh of Mr, William Parry,
I was the pilot in charge of the ship Oreto when she left the Toxteth Dock on the
4th March, ld62. I continued on board to the day of her sailing, which was the 22d
•f the same month, and never left her save on Sunday, when all work was suspended,
I saw the ship before the coals and provisions were taken into her ; there were no
munitions of war in her, that is to say, she had no guns, carriages, shot, shell, or pow.
der ; had there been any on board I must have seen it. I piloted the ship out ot the
Mersey, to Point Lynas, off Anglesea, where I left her, and she proceeded down chan-
nel, since which she has not returned. From the time the vessel loft the river until I
left her she held no communication with the shore, or with any other vessel, for the
purpose of receiving anything like cargo on board. I frequently saw Mr. Lloyd, the
tide surveyor, alongside the ship while in the river.
WM. PARRY.'
Sworn before me at the custom-house, Liverpool, this 23d August, 1B62.
S. PRICE EDWARDS, Collector,
* British Appendix, vol. i, p. 7; United States Documents, vol. vi, p. 231.
* British Case, p. 5S; British Appendix, vol. i, p. 34.
382 ARBITRATION AT GENEVA.
Upon the facts to which I have been referring, it seems to me impos-
sible to entertain a serious doubt that if the cause had been brought
into a court of justice, the case of the government must have broken
down hopelessly, and the vessel must have been forthwith released. In
discussing the legal questions bearing on this part of the case, I haveal-
already given my reasons for thinking that under such circumstances a gov-
ernment would not be justified in instituting legal proceedings. I reiterate
that opinion here. I think it would have Wn useless, and therefore
wrong, to seize, and take proceedings to condemn, the Oreto.
The deficiency of proof, up to the time of the departure of the Florida
from Liverpool, as to the vessel being intended for the Confederate
States, is now sought to be made good by a general and sweeping state-
ment as to the <^ notoriety ^ of the fact. ^'All the facts about the Flor-
ida," it is said, ^' and about the hostile expedition which it was proposed
to make against the United States, were open and notorious at Liver-
pool."^ Of course nothing is more easy than to make a general asser-
tion of this kind ; but such an assertion ought not to be made without
some evidence to support it. The only proofs to which we are referred
are the dispatches of Mr. Dudley during the period in question ; but hav-
ing gone carefully through these dispatches, almost all of which I have
hereinbefore set out, I find nowhere any reference whatsoever to the ^* no-
toriety" which, on the authority of these dispatches, is thus boldly asserted
to have existed. I find, however, strong proof of the contrary in the
statement of Mr. Dudley himself, a« to the great secrecy that was main-
tained about the vessel, and his consequent inability to obtain }iny
'' definite information" concerning her, as well as in the fact that in all
his statements respecting her he seldom adduced any definite or specific
information, which did not afterward turn out to be incorrect. The
British government is, therefore, as it seems to me, well warranted in ask-
ing, where is the proof of these assertions ? Where is the proof that even
the American consul at Liverpool, whose activity in hunting for secret in-
formation apx)ears to have been indefatigable, and to whom every one
resorted who had information to disclose, knew of the contract with
Bullock, or of the dispatch, cargo, and destination of the Bahama t
And if he knew them, why did he not either communicate his knowledge
and the proofs in his possession to the British government, or himself
lay an information on oath against the ship ?^
But there is an important fact, which appears to me conclusive to dis-
prove the alleged notoriety thus positively asserted. The crew of the
Oreto had shipped at Liverpool for what they believed to be a mercan-
tile voyage to Palermo and Jamaica. By the time they had arrived at
Nassau, they began to suspect the true chai^acter of the vessel, and that
she was intended for a vessel of war for the Confederate States, where-
upon they refused to continue in her, and insisted on their discharge.
It is plain that these men, coming from the port of Liveq)ool, had b^a
whoUy unaware of what is now represented to have been there matter
of open notoriety. No one acquainted with the habits of seamen, and
aware of the interest this class of men take in the character of a vessel
in which they are about to ship for a long voyage, can be credalons
enough to believe, ui>on the mere credit of an assertion unsupported bf
proof, that a crew of fifty men could have shipped on board of this vessel
in utter ignorance of a fact alleged to have been notorious to every one
at the port ; and which, if known to them, would, as the sequel showed,
* Cane of the United States, p. :i35.
* British Counter Caae, p. 74. •
OPINIONS OF SIR ALEXANDER COCKBURN. 383
at once have deterred them from taking service in her. It i» impossible
to believe in anything so unlikely.
But even if this alleged notoriety had existed, it would have availed
nothing toward proof of the facts to be established. If facts are notori-
ous, they can the mote readily be proved. But if notoriety rests, not on
proof capable of being adduced, but on common talk and rumor,
evidence of such notoriety is inadmissible in an English court. It would
have availed the government nothing to allege that the destination of
the Oreto to the confederate service was matter of notoriety at Liverpool,
even had the fact that such notoriety existed been true, which, however,
appears not to have been the case.
The substance of the facts to be gathered from the correspondence, as
stated in the British Counter Case, appears to me, after a careful exam-
ination, to be so accurately stated, that I have no hesitation in tran-
scribing it and ^ving the sanction of my confirmation :
It is clear that Mr. Dadley himself was in ignorance of the facts which, in the case
of the United States, are asserted to have been open and notorious to all. His attention
had been called to the Florida, then in the bnilder's yard, as early as November, 1861.
On the 24th January, 1862, hfi writes that '^she is reported for the Italian government ;'/
bat the fact of the machinery beins; supplied by Fawoett &, Preston, aud other cir-
cumstances, onake him " suspicious,'^ and cause him to believe she is inttoded for the
8outh. On the 4th February the circu mstances ye still '' somewhat suspicions."
'' There is much secrecy observed about her, and I^ave been unable to get anything
definite, but my impressions are strong that she is intended for the southern confed-
eraey. I have communicated my impressions and all the facts to Mr. Adams, our
minister in London." At that moment the ship was taking in her coal ; and " appear-
ances indicate," he wrote, " that she will leave here the latte^ part of tliis week." He
makes, however, no representation to the government, nor does Mr. Adams make any.
On the 12th he writes to Mr. Seward that everything he sees and hears confirms him in
the beUef that the vessel is intended for the con&deraoy ; but he mentions no fact,
except that Miller (the builder) had said that Fawcett, Preston & Co. gave him the
contract. Still no representation is made. On the 17th, he has '* obtained information
from many different sources," which " ^oes to show " that she is intended for the Con-
federate States. Nevertheless, the solitary fact mentioned is that Fawcett, Preston &
Co. are said to be the owners, with the addition that advances are said to have been
made to them and to Miller bv Fraser, Trenholm &, Co. Afterward he tells Mr. Seward
that he has '' no doubt," and has ** positive evidence that she is for the South ;" and, on
the 5th March, that two persons in the employ of Fawcett, Preston &. Co. had said so.
But up to the time when she left Liverpool, his correspondence mentions not a single
circumstance proving, or tending to prove, for what purpose she was intended, beyond
some rumors as to her probable movements, which turned out to be erroneous. With
the " notorious fact " that she had been ordered by Bullock he is evidently quite unac-
quainted. As to the Bahama, so far is he from being aware of the " notorious fa<it ''
that she was about to take out the Florida's armament, that up to the 6th March he is
making fruitless inquiries. about that vessel, aud can obtain no information about her,
or any vessel of that name. Several days afterward he learns that she is loading with
<-annon and other munitions of war at Hartlepool, aud *' will either run the hlockade^ or
laud her cargo at Bermuda or Nassau, and have it ferried over in smaller veeaeW He be-
lieves her, in short, to the last, to ])e merely a blockade-runner laden with articles con-
traband of war, and has no idea of her having any connection with the Florida.'
Bnt it is said that Her Majesty's government ought not to have re-
mained satisfied with the inquiry made by its officers ; that it should
have pushed its inquries further; and that had it done so with
due diligence, it might have obtained means to establish the fact
of the Oreto being int-ended for the confederate service. But we are not
told where such further inquiry could or should have been made, or
where this supposed evidence could have been obtained. We know from
Mr. Dudley that the gre<'itest secrecy was observed, so that even he could
discover nothing definite. The secret would, of course, be confined
to a very few persons; and though surmise and conjecture may
have soon sprung up and given rise to the rumors and pretended
information which found their way to Mr. Dudley, the persons really
' British Counter Case, p. 74.
384 ARBITRATION AT GENEVA.
possessed of the secret would be little likely to reveal it. However
pressing the inquiry, the same story would in all probability have been
persisted in. The builders had already, been applied to, and had given
an apparently satisfactory answer. Mr. Adams himself appears (from
his letter of the 25th of March) to have believed at one time that tke
vessel might at first have been intended for service in Sicily, and
that such an intention had afterward been abandoned. The firm by
whom she had been built was a respectable one, and it could hadly be
assumed that they would knowingly lend their names to an intentionally
false statement. It is now plain that the statement then made was un-
true ; but there was no reason to believe so then. Possibly the firm
« were themselves misled. Mr. Thomas and the Palermo firm may have
been introduced for the purpose of deceiving Miller & Sons into the be-
lief that in building the vessel they were doing nothing wrong. Be this
as it may, the question is, what means the government then had ot
knowing or discovering that the Oreto was not meant for the firm of
Thomas Brothers of Palermo, but for a belligerent state. Of whom else
is it suggested that the authorities could have inquired and ascertained
the truth 1
It may b^ said that it would have been better if the government had
again telegraphed to the Qptish minister in Italy, but a period of up-
ward of a month had elapsed since anything had been heard from Mr.
Adams about the Oreto ; the vessel was still unarmed, nor had the
government reason to suppose she was about to leave. It may, perhaps,
be said that inquiry «hould have been made of Fawcett, Preston & Co.;
and I agree that it would have been better if that course had been taken,
but I greatiy doubt whether it would have produced any other answer
than that which had been given by Miller & Sons.
It must not be forgotten that the persons who carried information,
more or less entitled to credit, to Mr. Dudley, communicated with him
in confidence and insisted on secrecy. Mr. Dudley more than once states
that the information having been given in confidence, he is not at liberty
to disclose the names of his informers. It is obvious that these parties
would not be likely to give similar information to the authorities, who
certainly would not have treated it as confidential. While aspersions
are cast on the officers for omitting to make inquiry, I look in vain for a
suggestion as to where such inquiry should have been made.
And here it is necessary to point out what perhaps will appear strange
to those who are unacquainted with English procedure, which in this
respect is identical with that of America ; namely, that persons against
whom a prosecution, or proceeding to recover penalties, is either pend-
ing or about to be instituted, cannot be interrogated ; nor, if per-
sons are called on to give evidence as witnesses, can any questions be
put to them which have a tendency to implicate them in any breach ot
the law.
Still less is it in the power of the government to institute any com-
pulsory inquiry with a view to establish a breach of the law, except ac-
cording to regular process of law ; or to search a person's premises, or
to insist on explanations from persons suspected of having committed
an offense against the law. The government had, therefore, no possible
means of obtaining information, except from those who might be volan-
tarily disposed to give it. If Mr. Dudley had opened any of his secret
sources of information, supposing him really to have possessed such, a
clew to the truth might possibly have been discovered ; bat he kept
them to himself, and those who were ready to furnish information t*)
him kept aloof from imparting it to the authorities.
OPINIONS OF SIR ALEXANDER COCKBURN. 385
Lastly, there is not in England, any more than in America, any sys-
tem of espionage or secret police to pry into men's secret actions or
obtain information for the government by underhand and unworthy
means.
Can it be contended that Great Britain should have abandoned prin-
ciples and rules of public conduct, hitherto held sacred, for the benefit
of other nations embarked in quarrels and wars in which she herself had
no concern — at all events before experience had shown that her existing
law was insufficient ?
When, therefore, a member of this tribunal states as the principal
ground of a judgment adverse to Great Britain that, notwithstanding
the complaints of Mr. Adams, the English authorities did not take the
initiative; that they did not insist ou its being proved what was the
true destination of the ship, who was the true owner, who had given the
orders for it, and who was to pay for it, and did not insist on the true
position of Fraser, Trenholm & Go. being shown by legal proof, or upon
being positively informed as to the crew of the vessel, I am at a loss to
know whether he means that the law of England was such as that the
government could have exercised the powers which he says they ought
to have used, or whether he means to say .that Great Britain ought to
have changed the tenor of her law and the course of her procedure,
before the necessity of such a change had become apparent, simply
because war had broken out between the Northern and Southern States
of the American Union. If the former, the proposition appears to me
untenable ; if the latter, I must be allowed to express my regret that
Great Britain should have to suffer by reason of a judgment founded
upon an apparent misconception of her law.
If it is, really meant to be said that Great Britain is to be held
responsible because her law ought to have been other than it was, and
ought to have been such as to give power to the executive to insist
on proof of the innocent destination of this vessel, and to detain her
till such proof was given, or to enable it to exercise inquisitorial pow-
ers as to her character, I fall back on the position I asserted some
time since, and say that not only could no such thing reasonably be
expected, but that, inasmuch as the Government of the United States
possessed no such power — for their assertion that they did possess it
is, as I have shown, but a pretense — and therefore, if the position of
the two governments had been reversed, could not have done for Great
Britain what they now say Great Britain should have done for the
benefit of the United States, they can have no claim in justice or equity
for such an exercise of power on the part of the British government.
After a careful review of the whole case, my opinion is that upon the
then existing state of facts, and with the amount of evidence they then
possessed. Her Majesty's government were guilty of no want of due dili-
gence in suffering the Oreto to leave the port of Liverpool, and, on the
contrary, would not have been justified in detaining her.
Further, I am of opinion that Her Majesty's government were not
wanting in due diligence in not procuring the evidence necessary to
insnre the condemnation of the Oreto, for the simple reason that I am
satisfied that there were no means whatever in their power of obtain-
ing it.
I am very far from saying that officers to whom is committed the duty
of guarding against any infraction of this part of the law are justified
in considering themselves merely as the recipients of evidence to be
furnished by the agent of a belligerent government, and that they may
remain inactive till the latter has made out a complete case against a
25 b
386 ARBITRATION AT GENEVA.
vessel, as to which a violation of the foreign-enlistment act is suspected
to have taken place. If reasonable grounds of suspicion appear, it be-
comes their duty to make inquiry, according to the best of their ability^
and to take active measures to prevent a breach of the law. On the
other hand, it is the duty of a foreign agent, if information comes to his
knowledge of which the authorities are not possessed, to set them in
motion, and to aid them in their proceedings, more especially if he
ha|)pens to have access to secret sources of information not open to
them. Here Mr. Dudley either had information which could be made
available, or he had not. If he had, he ought to have given the authori-
ties some clew whereby they might have got at the truth. Had he iu-
formed them, or Mr. Adams, of the facts which, transmitted to Mr.
JSeward alone, became useless, inquiries might have been institut(*<i
which might have led to the detention of the vessel. If Mr. Dudley bad
available information and neglected to communicate it in the proper
quarter, the fault was his, and Her Majesty's governujent ought not to
be held responsible for the default of an agent of the United States,
when the latter are seeking damages at their hands. If he, with his
superior opportunities, was unable to obtain such information, it ouirht
not to be imputed to the authorities as negligence that they were una-
ble to do better.
To sum up the matter in a word :
The equipping of this vessel not amounting to a violation of neutral-
ity, but simply to a breach of the foreign-enlistment act, the government
iiad no authority to seize it by the mere exercise of the prerogative of
the Crown, or by virtue of any executive power. Its powers were
derived from the act of the 59th of George III, the foreign-enlist-
ment act.
There was not evidence on which to seize this vessel and to ask for
her condemnation under the foreign-enlistment act.
There were no means of obtaining such evidence except by the exer-
cise of inquisitorial powers which the government did not possess.
It was not incumbent on the government of Great Britain to ask for,
or on Parliament to grant, powers inconsistent with the established
principles of British law and government and with the general institu-
tions of the country.
It cannot properly be imputed to the government, as want of due dil-
igence, that it did not endeavor to obtain such powers when the exist
ing law had hitherto proved sufficient.
It would be in the highest degree inequitable and unjust to hold tlie
contrary in favor of the United States, when the law of the latter was
substantially, if not absolutely, the same as that of Great Britain, and
therefore could have afforded no more efficacious means of prevention
than that of Great Britain.
I pass on to what may be termed the second stage in the history of
this vessel, namely, the events which took place on her
arrival at the Bahamas.
Having left Liverpool on the 22d of March, she arrived at Nassau on
the 28th of April.^ On the 29th she quitted the part of the harbor
which is adjacent to the town of Nassau, and proceeded to Cochraues
anchorage, a station distant from the town about fifteen miles. It was
stated that this was done by the advice of the pilot who bad charge of
her, for the reason that there was not room for her in the harbor j* but
it is probable that this was only a pretext.
* British Appendix, vol. i, p. 5S.
«Ibid., p. 63.
OPINIONS OF SIR ALEXANDER COCKBURN. 387
Ten (lays afterward, namely, on the 9tli of May, Mr. Whiting, the
consul of the United States at Nassau, writes to Mr. Bayley, the gov-
ernor of the Bahamas, a^ follows:
I have the honor to couununicate to your excellency several facts of importance,
ileeniing it to he my duty so to do, as represeutative of the Government of the United
states of America.
The tug Fanny Lewis, which arrived here from Liverpool on the 6th instant, has on
board, I am credibly informed by letters received from that port, a large quantity of
powder for the rebel States of America, or for the so called Confederate States.
On the 28tli ultimo the steamer Or eo also arrived olf this port from Liverpool, and
now lies at Cochraue's anchorage, where, it is believed, and so reported by many resi-
dents here, that she is being prepared and fitted out as a confederate privateer, to prey
on the commerce of the United States of America.
I inclose for your excellency's perusal a slij) from the Wilmington, North Carolina,
pai>er of the 20th April.
I cannot but think that your excellency will consider it proper that some inquiry
should be made, to ascertain how far the vessels alluded to are preserving the strict
neutrality so earnestly enjoined by Her Majesty's late proclamation, and I am contideut
that I pay but a deserved tribute to your excellency's high character when I express
my firm belief that no illegal steps will be allowed to those who seek to subvert the
(vovernment which I have the honor to represent.^
As the colonial authorities of the Bahamas, including, of course, the
jjfoverfior and his legal adviser, have, in the case of the UuiXed States,
b«*en publicly accused of ''open i)artiality to the cause of the South,"
and of having been "actively friendly to the insurgents," and it is
directly imputed to them that, in the course they pursued with reference
to the Oreto, they were induced by these motives to depart from what
would have been the line of conduct which a sense of duty would have
prescribed, I deem it no more than is due to absent men. whose honor
i.s thus impugned, to call particular attention to the correspondence
which passed on this subject and to the tacts which actually occurred.
Ou the receipt of Mr. Whiting's letter, the governor requested an im-
mediate report from the receiver-general of tlie colony as to the truth
of the allegations contained in it, and received from him the following
reply, dated the same day i^
The British steamer Oreto entered at this office on the 2Sth April from Liverpool
I Kii<<land) with balla.st. She did not enter the harbor, and now lies at Cochraue's
anchorage, and I have no information &s to her future proceedings.
The British brig Fanny Lewis entered 7th May from Liverpool with "assorted cargo,
not to be landed.*^ She now lies near Potter's Cay, and I am confident that she has
not transferred any part of her cargo, as no permission to do so has been asked, and
w it hou t a permit she would be subject to a heavy penalty. I cannot tell whether she ha.s
ixuy x>owder ou board, as no such aiticle is mentioned in the manifest.
The matter was at once referred by the governor to the attorney-
;^eiieral of the colony in the usual course. The attorney-general, on
the same 9th of May, reported as follows:
Assuming the cargo of the Fanny Lewis to bo such as stated by the United States
troiisnl, it is nevertheless one that can legally be imported here frcun the United King-
dom, aud its future presumed destination does not invest it with any character of ille-
;^ality which calls for or would authorize any action with respect to it ou the part of
the executive or other authorilies of the colony.
•2. With respect to the Oreto, the consul's allegation is to the effect that it is bo
]i«*ve(l and reporti-d by many residents here that she is being pre])ared and fitted out
\vbei*o she now lies at Cochraue's anchorage, which is within the limits of the port of
Nassau, as a confederate privateer. Now if such is the fact, an offense against th«i
I'oreigu-enlistment act has been committed, all parties implieated in which are liablo
t*> he criminally proceeded against for misdemeanor, and the vessel may be seiz»*(l by
uiiy naval or revenue officer; but to justify proceedings either against the parties or
the veiisel, the matt-er must not rest on repute or belief alone, but the authorities must
^ British Appendix, vol i, p. 14.
•Ibid., vol. V, p. 35.
388 ARBITRATION AT GEXEYA.
liave positive fact<8 to groand their proceeding on, and unless the consnl can adduce
such, or they can be obtained through other channels, no steps can be taken either for
the arrest of the yessel or those on board of her.
G. C. ANDERSOK.^
The attorney-general was perfectly right on both points. The gov-
ernor had no power to prevent a merchant-vessel, snch as the Fauny
Lewis, with cargo, from attempting to run the blockade ; he had no
power to seize or interfere with a vessel as for a breach of the foreign-
enlistment act, unless it could be shown not only that she wa« equipped
for war, but also that she was destined for the service of a belligerent
Upon the latter point, evidence was at this time wholly wanting, aiul
therefore, so far, all was right. At a later period the circuuLStances
became materially altered.
On the 9th of May, Governor Bayley wrote officially to Adderley &
Co., a mercantile firm at Nassau, who were the consignees of theOreto,
notifying to them that, ^Mf they were arming or putting arms on board
that Vessel, he should enforce the rules laid down in Her Majesty's
proclamation ; as, in such case, looking to the description of the vessel,
he must infer that she was a vessel of war, intended to act against the
United States;" adding that, "as Her Majesty's government had ex-
pressed their deliberate intention of observing and enforcing neutrality
in the Queen's possessions, he should use his sirongest efforts to pre-
vent either of the belligerent powers from arming or equipping vessels
of war in that port."*
The reply of Adderley & Co. appeared quite satisfactory. In poei-
tive terms they say : " We beg to state, for the information of his excel-
lency the governor, that we have neither attempted to arm or put arms
on board of the British steamer Oretd, consigned to our firm ; nor are
we aware of there being any intention on the part of the owners to arm
that vessel."^
So matters rertaained till the 28th of the month, when Commander
McKillop, then commanding Her Majesty's ship Bulldog in the port of
Nassau, wrote to the governor as follows :
Several steamers having anchored at Cochrane's anchorage, I sent an officer yester
day to visit them and mnster their crews, and ascertain what they were and hov
employed.
The officer reports that one steamer, the Oreto, is apparently fitting and preparing
for a vessel of war ; under these circumstances, I would suggest that she should ooine
into the harhor of Nassau to prevent any misunderstanding as to her equipping in this
port, contrary to the foreign-enlistment act, as a privateer or war-vessel.^
On receipt of this letter the governor desired the advice of the
attorney-general as to whether he had power, in point of law, to order
the removal of the vessel from her then anchorage to Nassau, a qaes-
tion about which he might well entertain serious doubts. Thereupon
that officer reported as follows :
Anv British or foreign trading- vessel has a right, in carrying on her lawful com-
mercial pursuits, to use as anchoraee-places any of the harbors, roadsteads, au<l
Anchorages in the colony; she can, iiowever, only fade or unlade cargo at such
places as may be authorized for the purpose by the revenue department, and in
the presence of a revenue officer; and as the revenue department is, by the trade
act, 17 Vict., cap. 3, placed under the iurisdiction and management of the governor
and the executive council, it will be lawful for the governor, acting with the ad-
vice of the council, to proliibit the lading of cargo on board of the Oreto otherwise
than in the harbor of Nassau ; but beyond exercising the powers conferred on him bv
the trade laws, his excellency has no power to compel the removal of the Oreto from
^ British Appendix, vol. i, p. 15.
> Ibid.
3 Ibid., p. 16.
*Tbid.
OPINIONS OP SIR ALEXANDER COCKBURN. 389
ber present anchorage, unless some act has been done in respect of her which would
constitute a violation of law and subject ber to seiznre. This brings me to the qnes-
tiou whether there is anything disclosed in yonr communication which would, in a
court of law, justify the forcible removal of the vessel from her present position. The
information amounts to this, that the senior naval oflScer on the station has officially
reported to the governor that "this vessel is apparently fitting and preparing for a
vessel of war ;*^ or, as stated in your note of yesterday, " has the appearance of a pri-
vateer arming herself.'' Now, unless Captain McKillop grounds the opinion formed
and reported by him on some overt act, such as the placing of arms or other muni-
tions of war on board of the vessel without the sanction of the revenue department,
or some such similar act, evidencing an intention on the part of the persons in charge
of the vessel to fit her out as a vessel of war to be employed in the service of a foreign
belligerent power, the forcible removal of the vessel from her present position, merely
to guard against a possible infraction of the law, could not be justified. Such removal
would in fact constitute a " seizure," wbich the parties making would be responsible
for in damages, unless they could show a legal justification, which must bo based upon
something beyond mere suspicion ; but while mere suspicion is not sufficient to author-
ize the course of proceeding indicated in your letter, it is certainly sufficient to call for
precautionary measures, such as I advised in respect of this very vessel in my minute
on the receiver-general's letter referred to me by the governor two or three days since,
namely, th<it the receiver-general should, under the powers of his office, place a reve-
nue officer on board of her to watch the proceedings of the parties on board, in order
that if any actual contravention of the law took place, it might be at once reported,
and prompt measures taken by seizure of the vessel and otherwise to punish all par-
ties implicated therein.^
So far, the opinion given by the attorney-general was perfectly
soand.
The letter of the receiver-general here referred to Was one dated the
26th of May, in which that officer stated that he had every reason to
believe that the consignees of the vessel intended shipping large quan-
tities of arms and munitions of war as cargo, and might probably apply
for permission to transship cargo to her from other vessels where she
lay.»
In a letter to the colonial secretary of the next day (May 30) the at-
torney-general writes:
Any act of arming, or any attempt to arm, a vessel in contravention of the imperial
statute, commonly known as the foreign-enlistment act, will subject the vessel to
seizore ; and it is quite immaterial in what manner the violation of the law is ascer-
tained, or by whose testimony it is established, the only necessary requirement being
that the facts testified to should be such as would be received in a court of law as legal
proof of the violation of tlie statute sought to be established.^
Having received the attorney-general's report, the governor, on the
2d of June, thus writes to Commander McKillop :
I may say that it is quite impossible that the Oreto, or any other vessel, should be
allowed to arm herself for belligerent purposes within the ju|;isdiction of the harbor.
The Oreto is registered as a British vessel, and carries the British flag. Therefore
she would be guilty of piracy if, without changing ber British natiouality, she equipped
herself as a vessel of wof. And were she to change her nationality and to be equipped
for the service of either of two belligerent states, with both of wiiom Great Britain is
at peace, she would, under the directions of Her Mnjesty^s government, be precluded
from remaining more than twenty-four consecutive hours in our harbor.
But inasmucn as it is not yet proved beyond doubt that the Oreto is a vessel of war,
and as it is just possible that she may be only a merchant-ship, taking arms and im-
plemeutH of war solely for exportation, it is desirable that a mor6 special and minute
examination of her conditions and equipment should be made before she can be treated
as a pirate, a privateer, or foreign man-of-war arming within our waters ; for, while
it would be in contravention of the foreign-enlistment act to arm an English vessel for
the service of a foreign belligerent power, and contrary to the positive orders of the
Queon's government to allow a vessel of war belonging either to the Federal or con-
federate government to arm herself in an English port, it would be equally illegal on
our part to seize a merchant-vessel honestly and exclusively employed in the shipment
of cargo for the purpose of commerce.
^ British Appendix, vol. i, p. 17.
» Ibid., vol. V, pp. 35, 3e.
'Ibid., vol. i, p. 18.
390 ARBITRATION AT GENEVA.
Therefore I request that yon will take such steps as in your professional opinion seem
best for the purpose of ascertaining the true character of the Oreto, and the natare of
her equipment ; and if, after inspecting her guns, her crew, and the general disposi-
tion <if the vessel, you are convinced that she is in reality a man-of-war or priva-
teer arming herself here, then it will become your duty either to concert measures for
bringing the Oreto down into this part of the harbor, or, what would be a safer conrKc.
to remove your own ship to Cochrune's anchorage, and there watch her proceediDg9
from day to day.
I should much regret to disarrange yonr plans in any way, or to impose on you any
irksome duty, and I hope the necessity of either may be averted. But I am sure you
will concur with me in thiuking that all considerations (except that of affording dne
protection to the harbor) must give way to the obligation of observing the strictest
neutrality in our dealings with the two contending American federations, and carrying;
out the Queen^s orders with the most perfect good faith.'"
Can it be doubted tbat the governor in thus writing was acting ac-
cording to an honest sense of duty I
It appears that about this time a man of the name of Jones, who bail
come out as boatswain of the Oreto, together with two of the crew, hav-
ing got on shore, had refused to return to the vessel; whereupon, be
and his companions had been, at the instance of the captain, appre-
hended and sent to prison, as having deserted from a British vessel.
This man, Jones, put himself in communication with Mr. Whiting,
the United States consul. On the 4th of June Mr. Whiting forwarded
to the governor the following letter from Jones to himself:
Nassau Prison, June 4, 1862.
Sir: The ship I am from is the Oreto, built by W. C. Miller, in Liverpool, after the
model of the English navy gun-boats, with magazine, shot-lockers, ports and bolU for
t went}' guns. Lverythiug is rigged, and ready for mounting; even all the articl<«
necessary for seamen, such as hammocks, bedding, kettles and pans, with three yean«'
provisions. In short, she is a perfect man-of-war. Captain, James Duguid ; chief
officer, William Duggin ; second officer, Hudson ; I, sir, was third officer autl boat- ,
swain ; the chief steward and purser, who refused duty, are in jail here.'^ i
This letter only confirmed what was already known, namely, the ca-
pacity of the vessel for the purpose of war. No evidence of her bellijr-
erent destination was afforded in it, or in the rejwrt of Comiuander
McKillop to the governor of the 6th of June, wherein he says that be
" has visited the screw-steamer Oreto and examined her, and that sbe
is fitted out in every way for war purposes — magazines, shell-rooms,
and other fittings, totally at variance with the character of a merchant-
vessel. She has no guns or ammunition on board. The captain does
not deny that she is intended for a war-vessel.'"
On this, taking the same view as before, the attorney-general re
l)orts :
There are no facts set forth in the within letter which would, in my opinion, author-
ize the seizure of the Oreto. They constitute only circumstances of suspicion, whicli,
if coupled with some actual overt act, would doubtless materially strengthen the cast*
against the vessel, but which do not in themselves form a ground of seizure.^
In a note of the 8th of June, Commander McKillop again adverts to
the warlike character of this vessel, and states his opinion " that slie
was not capable of taking in any cargo, having no stowage; adding
that, should she take in guns or ammunition, he should consider it bis
duty to seize her."*
On the 12th of June Mr. Whiting again calls the attention of
the governor to the Oreto. " One of her officers," he says — I presume
he refers to Jones, the boatswain — "testifies to her warlike character
and equipment, with everything that marks a vessel of war — sports.
^n everything that marks a
^ British Appendix, vol. i, p. 18.
^ Ibid., p. 19.
3 Ibid., p. 20.
< Ibid.
*lbid., p. 21.
OPINIONS OF SIR ALEXANDER COCKBURN. 391
magazines, shot-lockers, &c. He avers that shells were transferred
from the steamer Uero to the Oreto at Cochraiie's anchorat^e, an act
which, I suppose, would warrant her seizure and detention. The steamer
]Melita, from England, landed here last Sunday Captain Semmes and
officers of the pirate Sumter, and I have no doubt they are here to join
the Oreto and pursue their maritime depredations." ^
The colonial secretary replies :
His exceUency has been assured by the agents of the Oreto that it is their intention
to clear her in ballast for Havana ; and he h&s received from the treassurer (as col-
lector of the colonial customs) an application to give her this clearance, an application
to which he has accorded his assent.
His excellency has, therefore, no right to assume that she is now equipping herself,
or will leave this port equipped, as a privateer.
While his excellency is bonnd by his iustrnctions to observe the strictest neutrality
between the United States and the Confederate States of North America, he has no
power whatever to act on general suspicion or hearsay. He is bound to give the
twenty-four hours' notice to any known privateer or man-of-war belonging to either
of the belligerent States which may put into this port for indispensable snpplies, but
he is not bonnd to detain or obstruct any vessels professing to be engaged on a com-
mercial voyage, unless he has evidence strong enough to satisfy the court of admi-
ralty that she is in fact a belligerent vessel, proceeding on a belligerent mission.
Not having any proof which would warrant the condemnation of the Oreto by a com-
petent conrt of jurisdiction, or which would connect her with any privateering enter-
prise, his excellency feels that it is as yet out of his power to interfere with this vessel,
or prevent her presumably peaceful and innocent voyage to Havana.'^
It would appear that, in the first days of June, the consignees of the
Oreto had applied to the receiver-general of the colony for permission to
load the vessel with cargo for a voyage to Saint John's, New Brunswick,
that port being the usual destination for which vessels intending to run
the blockade ostensibly cleared. The receiver-general, before acceding
to this request, referred the matter to the governor. The permission
to ship the cargo was granted, but, in consequence of the suspicions
attaching to the vessel, the following order was at the same time adopted
by the governor in council on the 4th of June : ^
June 4, 1862.
At an executive council his excellency the governor, with the advice of the board,
was pleased to make the following order :
1. That the Oreto, if practicable, should take in her cargo within the port of
Niissau.
2. That if, however, it be found impracticable, from the depth of water in port or
otherwise, that she cannot conveniently take in her cargo within the port, then that
Hhe be permitted to do so at Oochrane's Anchorage, under the direct supervision of
officers of the revenue department, to be specially appointed for the purpose.
3. That, in consequence of the suspicions which have arisen respecting the character
of the Oreto, it is advisable that a British vessel of war should remain at Oochrane's
Anchorage, in the immediate vicinity of the Oreto, while she is taking in car^o, and to
prevent such vessel being detained at the anchorage an inconveniently long tune, there
be imposed as a condition, for the permission for the Oreto to loiul without the port,
that she complete her lading at Oochrane's Anchorage, within a period to be designated
by the chief officer of the revenue department.
His excellency was further pleaded to direct that a copy of the foregoing order be
furnished to the receiver-general and treasurer, and the commander of Her Majesty's
ship Bulldog, respectively, for their information and guidance.
This order having been communicated to the consignees, the latter
determined to remove the Oreto fromCochrane's Anchorage to the port
of Nassau, which she entered on the 7th of June. On the 9th she com-
menced taking in empty shells as cargo, of which upward of 400 boxes
were shipped. *
^ British Appendix, vol. i, p. 21.
s Ibid., pp. 21, 22.
3Ibid,p.53.
* Ibid, and vol. y, pp. 38, 40, and 47.
392 ABBITRATION AT GENEVA.
In deference, however, as it seems, to the desire of the governor, tbe
consignees changed their purpose, and determined to clear the vessel
in ballast for Havana, and the shells were therefore discharged.^
In the mean time Mr. Whiting continued his communications with
Jones, and on the 13th June drew up the statements of the latter in the
form of an affidavit, in which all that had taken place since the vessel
had left Liverpool was detailed, and the true character of the vessel
placed beyond a doubt.
The following is the affidavit :
I, the nndersigned, Edward Jones, late third officer of the steamer Oreto, do solemnly
swear to the follow in g facts, viz :
1. That, on the M day of March, 1862, 1 shipped on board the steamer Oreto at Liv-
erpool, as boatswain ; tbe articles specifying that the vessel was bound to the port of
Palermo ; thence, if required, to any port in the Mediterraueani or the West Indies,
and back to a final port of discharge in the United Kingdom ; the term of service not
to exceed six months.*
2. That the Oreto was expresslv bnilt for a man-of-war, and was said to be destioed
for the King of Sardinia ; that sne has twenty ports, magazine of 50 tons capacity,
shot-lockers, Ulc. ; that on her passage to this port, breechmgs and gun-tackles were
fitted and everything got in readiness for mounting guns.
3. That the Oreto was supplied with two suits of sails, spare wire rigging, a large
quantity of provisions, said to be sufficient for three years' supply for seventy-five
men, &c., &c.
4. That after leaving the channel the courses were frequently altered, and that my
suspicions were then aroused as to her true destination as a rebel privateer, and I
refused duty : that on the thirty-fifth day out, we anchored off the port of Nassau, New
Providence, Bahamas, and the next day proceeded to Cochrane's Anchorage ; that soon
after I left tbe Oreto, and was imprisoned as a deserter at Nassau, for two weeks,
when, after sending a petition to the governor, I was at last released.
5. I also testify to the fact that, for several nights prior to our arrival at Nassaa, the
lights on board the Oreto were ordered to be put out, and the smoke-stacks were reefed,
while look-outs were kept at the mast-heads, and great anxiety was manifested and
expressed by the officers lest they should fall in with American crnisers.
I do also solemnly swear that the Oreto is, to my certain knowledge, owned by tbe
so-called Confederate States of North America, and that she is intended for one of
their men-of-war, or armed privateers; which facts I stated in my petition to Governor
Bayley while I was in prison at Nassau.'
Mr. Whiting committed the unpardonable mistake of sending off this
affidavit to Mr. Sew^ard, instead of making it known to the local gov-
ernment.
In the mean time, Captain McKillop having gone on other service,
his place had been taken by Captain Hickley of Her Majesty's ship
Greyhound. On the 10th of June Captain Hickley, having previously
had a conversation with the governor and the Attorney-General, rela-
tive to the Oreto taking in warlike stores for the purpose of becoming
an armed vessel, and perceiving lighters alongside of her, went with
competent surveying officers to examine her, after which he and the
other officers made the following report :
On going on hoard the Oreto this morning, the captain informed me that the crew
had refused to set the anchor up until they could he certain as to where the ship was
going, as they did not know what might hecome of them after leaving port, and that
the Oreto was a suspicious vessel. I then proceeded round her decks to note her fit-
tings, &c.. and to ascertain whether she had any warlike stores on board for her own
equipment, and I have the honor to make the following report :
That the Oreto is in every respect fitted as a man-of-war, on the principle of the dis-
patch gun-vessels in Her Majesty's naval service.
That she has a crew of fifty men, and is capable of carrying two pivot-giins amid-
ships and four broadside, both forward and aft, the ports being made to " ship and no-
ship," port bars, breeching, side tackle, bolts, &c.
That she has shell-rooms, a magazine, and light-rooms, and "handing scuttles'' for
1 British Appendix, vol. i, p. 24.
> United States Documents, vol. vi, p. 251.
OPINIONS OP SIR ALEXANDER COCKBURN. 393
»
handing powder oat of the magazine, as fitted in the naval service, and shot-boxes for
Armstrong shot, or shot similar to them. Round the upper deck she has five boats, (I
should say,) a ten-oared cutter, an eight-oared cotter, two gigs, and a jolly-boat, and
davits for hoisting them up — her accommodation being in no respect different from her
similar class of vessels in the royal naval service.
And on my asking the captain of the Oreto, before my own officers and three of his
own, whether she had left Liverpool fitted in all respects as she was at present, his
answer was, "Yes, in all respects;" and that "no addition or alteration had been made
whatever." *
lu transmitting this report to the governor, Captain Hickley adds :
When I boarded the Oreto she appeared to be discharging her cargo, and this cargo,
to all appearance, shells; and I was proceeding to go on with the ei^amination when
the consignee (Mr. Harris) and a revenue officer told me that she (the Oreto) had
cleared in ballast for the Havana, and was to sail shortly, (I understood the next day,)
and that due notice had been given at the custom-house. On this I considered inter-
ference unnecessary on my part, and came immediately with the consignee to yon, to
report what had taken place, and the determined destination of the Oreto, but with
the nnderstanding that, owing to the suspicions alreadv cast on the vessel, I was to
again visit her before her leaving. This took place on the 10th, and the 11th and 12th
passed, and the Oreto did not sail, which again aroused my suspicions that the vessel
was not acting in good faith, and that she was still equipping, or making very definite
arrangements for so doing.
This morning, at 6.30 a. m., I was informed by Mr. Harris that the Oreto was to sail
immediately, at 8 a. m.; and feeling it a bounden duty to ascertain her character
before her leaving, to make my report to your excellency, that by so doing I might
have the law-officers' opinion as to the legality of her sailing before she quitted the
liort.
I have the honor to inclose my report for your excellency's information, for the
opinion of the attorney-general and Queen's advocate, that my course may be clear
as to my dealing with the Oreto, and whether, under the circumstances detailed
therein, she is entitled to go her way on the high seas under British colors.^
As the report of the officers and the letter of Commander Hickley,
while conclusively establishing the warlike character of the vessel,
failed to carry the case any farther as to attempt to equip or arm her
within the waters of the Bahamas, the attorney-general, to whom
these documents were referred, still adhered to his former view, and
advised that there was nothing contained in them which would justify
the detention of the vessel.
From the foregoing letter of Captain Hickley, it appears that, on
Huding that the Oreto was discharging shells out of the vessel, and on
l>eing told by Mr. Harris, one of the consignees, and by a revenue officer'
on board, that she had cleared out in ballast for the Havana, and was
to sail, as he understood, the next day, and that due notice had been
given at the custom-house, Captain Hickley, however, desirous of pre-
venting with inflexible rigor any breach of neutrality in a port of Her
Majesty, considered that all ground for further interference with the
vessel — provided always that this undertaking should be carried out —
was at an end.
Two more days, however, having elapsed since his last letter, and
the vessel still remaining at her anchorage, the suspicions of Cap-
tain Hickley became aroused anew. He does not appear to have
been at first aware that the cause of the delay was the continued
refusal of the crew to remain in the ship, in consequence of which
it had become necessary to collect another crew. On the 15th, the
boatswain, Jones, and some of the crew of the Oreto, acting under
the influence and at the instigation of Mr. Whiting, as appears from
the letter of the latter to Mr. Seward of the 18th of June, came on
board the Greyhound, and made, as Captain Hickley reports, publicly
before him, a variety of statements to the prejudice of the vessel as a
> British Appendix, vol. i, p. 23.
»Ibid., p. 22.
394 ARBITRATJON AT GENEVA.
1e$ral trader, both on her first leaving and sabseqaently to her leavln;;
Liverpool, stating that they had now left the Oreto, as they could not
ascertain her destination, althoagh she had cleared oat for the Haraua
some days since.'
iteferring to the statements made to him by the boatswain and crew.
Captain Hickley writes to the governor :
Thej^ circamstances, her lonfr detention in this port, her character, her fittings, coo-
vineed as I am also that during her stay in the port arrangements have been ma<le for
arming her outside, with the previous correspondence on her account, and the snspi-
cions already cast on her, her evident equipment for war purposes, although not at
present armed, or to my knowledge having any arms on board, and my conviction, as
also that of ray officers and men that have been on board her, that she is built intco-
tionally for a war- vessel and not for a merchant ship, make it incumbent on me to seize
the Oreto, as a vessel that can be no more considered as a free-trader, but that she u,
on the contrary, calculated to lie tnrned into a formidable vessel of war in twenty-four
hours ; and that this, I am convinced, will be the case if she is permitted to leave
Nassau.
Captain Hickley accordingly proceeded to seize the vessel, and re-
ported to the governor that he had done so. In his letter he proposes
to ^' send the vessel to the commodore or commander-in-chief on his own
professional responsibility.''^
On the other hand, Governor Bayley, in reply, states his general con-
currence with the opinion of the attorney-general :
I do not consider, he says, that suspicion alone would justify the seizure of the Oreto,
and the case as stated by yourself hardly seems to go beyond suspicion.
And the suspicion itself attaches not to any acts done by the Oreto, but only tx) tbe
intention of her equipment. Indeed, the testimony of the crew I understand to aiuonnt
to no more than an expression of suspicion. Now, I do not consider that I have any
legal authority to seize a vessel merely on the suspicion of her intentions. It seemi
to me that such an act on my part would violate the hospitalities of the barbor, and be
a precedent for grave injustice on future occasions.
The Oreto, as you are aware, has, in deference to yonr remonstrances and my orders,
discharged her cargo of shell, shot, and ammunition, and is ready t^ clear in balla^^t.
She has thus divested herself of the character of an armed vessel leaving this port for
lielligerent purposes. I do not think it consistent with law or public policy that she
should now be seized on the hypothesis that she is clearing out for the purpose of
arming herself as a vessel of war beyond the limits of the harbor. We have done onr
duty in seeing that she does not leave the harbor equipped and prepared to act offen-
sively against one of two belligerent nations, with each of whom Great Britain is at
peace.
And if she has still any such intention — an intention which cannot be fulfilled within
the harbor — I think this could be effectually thwarted by giving instructions that the
vessels which are supposed to be freighted with her arms, and to be prepared to go out
with her, should not leave the harbor within forty-eight hours after the Oreto h^^
left it.
If, however, you still retain the firm conviction not only that she is about to arm as
a vessel of war, but also that she is already partially equipped as one, and, moreover,
that she is engaged to act against a belligerent State which is at peace with Great
Britain, and that she has enlisted a crew for that object, your proper course nn-
doubtedly is, on seizing the Oreto, to submit the question of her condemnation to tbe
vice-admiralty court of this colony,
To remove her to Bermuda, Halifax, or any other colony, for the purpose of having
her condemned there, would be a course not only at variance with prescriptive usage,
but, as 1 cannot help thinking, open to censure, as implying an unmerited impntatioa
on the fairness and competency of the court of this colony. It is a course which I can-
not myself recommend or sanction, and which, if adopted by you, must bo adopted on
your own responsibility.'
The opinion of the attorney-general remained nnshaken :
" The report of Captain Hickley," he writes, "does not appear to me to carry the case
against the Oreto further than that shown in the previous reports of himself and Coni*
^ British Appendix, vol. i, pp. 23, 24.
2 Ibid., pp. 24, 25.
OPINIONS OF SIR ALEXANDER COCKBURN. 395
mander McKillop, and I contend that no case has as yet been made oat for the seizure
of that vessel under the foreign-enlistment act.
"With respect to the sugf^estion in the concluding part of Commander Hickley^s let-
ter, I have to remark that, if the vessel is liable to saizhre at all, it must be under the
provisions of the foreign-enlistment act, and if so seized, the question of her liability
may as readily and efficiently be decided in the court of vice -admiralty in this colony
as before any tribunal in Hu'r Majesty's colonial possessions, and consequently that no
necessity exists, nor do I think that any excuse can be made for sending her, as sug-
gested by Commander Hickley, to the commodore or commander-in-chief, who, I pre-
sume, are either at Bermuda or Halifax ; while, on the other hand, if I am correct in
the view I have taken of her non-liability to seizure, the reasons against sending her
hence will, of course, be far more powerful ; and therefore, on either view of the case^
1 advise his excellency to withhold his sanction from the coarse of action suggested."^
On the receipt of these coinmanications, Captain Hickley replies,
^^ repeating bis professional opinion, and that of his brother officers,
and again expressing his conviction that the Oreto was a vessel of war
that could be equipped in twenty-four hours for battle, and that she was
then going out of the harbor as nearly equipped as a vessel of war could
be without guns, arms, or aminnnitiou ;" but " declining to take on him-
self the responsibility of the further detention of the Oreto for the pur-
pose of placing her in the admiralty court, it being contrary to the law
officers' opinion, or of adopting the course of sending her to the command-
er-in-chief contrary to the governor's wishes." He announced his inten-
tion, therefore, of removing the officers and men from the Oreto, and
^^as a final decision had been come to, of offering no further obstacle to
her sailing.'^
On the i7th, Governor Bayley replies that he *' had felt it to be his
duty, in his letter of the day before, to express unreservedly his opinion
on the case of the Oreto, and the doubt he entertained respecting the
legality and policy of preventing her from leaving the harbor — doubts
which had been much increased by the strong opinion expressed by the
law officer of the Crown, who discharged the conjoint duties of Queen^s
advocate and attorney-general in this colony." He continues :
In deference to the views entertained by that officer and myself, you have, I now un-
derstand, removed the officers and crew who were in charge of the Oreto, and thereby
given her the option of leaving the harbor.
But, in the letter which announces this proceeding, yon repeat the expression of your
own and your officers' conviction that " the Oreto is a vessel of war, which can be
equipped'in twenty-four hours for battle." And in your brief conversation with me
this morning, you stated that though the Oreto had discharged some of her suspected
cargo here, still she was not leaving the port empty. A professional opinion, coming
from an officer of your character and rank, cannot fail to nave its due weight with me.
Ou the one hand, I am unwilling to place any restraint on a vessel which has not as
yet been formally proved to have violated the law, or impugned the neutrality of the
harbor by any overt act. I am equally unwilling to place any limit on the rights of
hospitality usually accorded to vessels of all nations in English harbors. I am most
niiwilling to strain t^he law to the prejudice of any vessel seeking that hospitality.
Hnt, at the same time, I cannot fail to recognize the great importance of the testimony
which may be brought forward by yourself and yonr crew ; nor can I fail to 8e« the
^Tave consequences which might result if a vessel, equipped and titted as you repre-
sent for the purposes of war, were quietly allowed to take a crew here and quit the
harlK>r with the intention of fighting on the side of one or two belligerent states, with
each of whom Great Britain is at peace.
To the doubts which this dilemma creates, I can see only one solution. The equip-
ment of the Oreto, the object of her voyage hither, the intent of her voyage hence,
the nature of her crew, and the purpose of their enlistment are all the fair subjects of ju-
dicial investigation. We cannot detain or condemn her on mere suspicion ; nor, when
Ruspicion has been so generaib* aroused, can we permit her to depart unexamined and
unalMolved.
Under every aspect therefore of the case, I think the best course which can be taken
in the interests of yourself, the colony, and the Government, will be to seize the Oreto,
and at once submit the question of her condemnation to the local court of vice-admi-
^ British Appendix, vol. i, p. 25.
^Ibid., p. 26.
396 ARBITRATION AT GENEVA.
ralty ; and I am glad to see that yon abandon the id^a of carrying her before the coorl
of any other colony. If, on the evidence which yon adduce, the conrt condemn her,
yoa will have the satisfaction of having prevented, certainly an illegal, and nrobably
a disastrous voyage. If the conrt do not condemn her, yon will have the satisfaction
of having discharged yonr dnty nnder circumstances of anxions donbt and difficulty,
the solntion of which will hereafter smooth the conrse of others placed in situations
equally trying and embarrassing.
My opinion is that an appeal to the decision of the4ocal vice-admiralty court is the
best expedient which coula be embraced by all the parties interested in the matter.
I will give the necessary instructions to the Queen's advocate.'
The course suggested was accordingly adopted. The Oreto was seized
and proceedings taken in the admiralty court of the Bahamas for her
condemnation, the result of which I shall advert to further on.
From the correspondence which, in view of the accusations made, I
have thought it my duty toward absent men, deprived of all means of
defense, to set out in some detail before the tribunal, even at the risk
of appearing tedious, it is apparent that two different and opposite views
were taken as to the propriety of seizing the Oreto. The naval officers,
finding her equipped as a ship of war, and from her presence at Nassau,
and the other suspicious circumstances connected wilh her, entertain-
ing no moral doubt that she was intended for the service of the con-
federates against the United States, were for seizing her with a high
hand. The civil authorities, sensible that to seize the vessel, unless
they could afterward hold her upon legal proof of her destination
as a belligerent vessel, such as would be received in a court of law, would
be worse than useless, and seeing no such proof forthcoming, were un-
willing to take upon themselves the responsibility of a proceeding which,
if it ended in defeat, would be attended with serious consequences. In
addition to this the attorney-general appears to have entertained an
opinion that, in order to warrant a seizure at Nassau, some equipment
of the vessel must have taken place within the precincts of the col-
ony— an opinion which, as we shall see presently, was shared by the
judge of the vice-admiralty court. That opinion was, in my judgment^
erroneous; but, after a careful perusal of the correspondence and con-
sideration of the facts, I am bound, in common justice to these parties,
whose conduct has been so cruelly impugned, to say that I cannot find
any ground to justify the suggestion that the views put forward by the
governor and attorney-general, in the course of these proceedings, were
not honestly and sincerely entertained.
But while 1 feel bound to give credit to the governor and attorney-
general for perfect honesty of intention, I am not prepared to go the
length of saying that, in my judgment, a degree of activity such as the
circumstances demanded was exhibited in ascertaining the true charac-
ter of the, Oreto. Down to the time, indeed, when revelations as to
the antecedents of the vessel were made by the crew, and while all that
had happened at Liverpool remained unknown in the colony', I am en-
tirely of opinion with the law-officer of the colony that the seizure of
the vessel would not have been warranted. However strong the sus-
picion, there was till then no actual proof of her destination. But when
the men on the 4th of June communicated all the facts to Mr. Whiting,
and afterward, at his suggestion, to Commander Hickley, and it thus
became known to the authorities that there were antecedents of a sus-
picious character connected with the vessel, it became, in my judgment,
the business of the law-officers to inquire into the facts. It is true Mr.
Whiting neglected the obvious duty of communicating to the authori-
ties the affidavit made by the boatswain Jones. But the attornej-
British Appendix, vol. i, pp. 26, 27.
OPINIONS OF SIR ALEXANDER COCKBURN. 397
jreneral must have been aware that there were important matters con-
nected with this vessel which the men who had come oat in her were
prepared to disclose; and I cannot bat think that, in snch a state of
things, he shoald have taken steps to inquire into and ascertain the
facts. In all probability the opinion — as I think, a mistaken one — that
nothing bat what took place in the waters of the colony could be made
available against the vessel, may have had the effect of inducing him
to remain passive.
Bat the question whether the omission to resort to this source of
information did not amount to a want of due diligence, loses its import-
ance by reason of the circumstance that, in spite of the opiuion of the
attorney-general, the Oreto was in fact seized and brought into coart
with a view to her condemnation. Upon that fact supervening, any
previous omission in this respect becomes, practically speaking, wholly
immaterial. Whether the vessel was seized a few days sooner or a few
(lays later can, obviously, under the circumstances, not have been of
the slightest consequence.
In like manner, when M. Staempfli suggests that the government at
home were wanting in due diligence, because, on finding that the Oreto
had not been built for the Italian government, they did not send out
to Nassau and other British colonies to direct the seizure of the vessel
should she come into a British port, the obvious answer which I
should have hoped would have occurred to his own mind is that, even
assuming that the government were bound to send instructions to that
eii'ect all over the globe, the only purpose which such exeujplary activ-
ity could have served would have been to secure the seizure of the
vessel and the bringing her into court. But this end having been
otherwise effected by the action of Captain Uickley and the governor,
any want of diligence in any other quarter becomes wholly immaterial.
When once the end to be obtained is by some means or other effected,
what matters it whether some other means whereby the same result
might possibly have been brought about may have been omitted to be
resorted to f
It cannot surely be necessary to point out that the omission to use
due diligence, if it produces no injury to a party entitled to claim the
exercise of such diligence, affords no ground for complaint or compensa-
tion. If, for example, a vessel were, by the negligence of the authorities,
permitted to be equipped and armed and to go forth to wage war on a
belligerent, but before doing any actual mischief, were fallen in with
by a more powerful enemy and taken, no amount of negligence in suffer-
ing her to go forth could constitute a ground for asking for pecuniary
compensation.
We may, therefore, pass over all the facts preliminary te the seizure
of the vessel, and come to the trial before the judge of the court of ad-
miralty of the colony. •
Now, I at once feel bound to say that with the result of this trial I am
anything bat satisfied. In my opinion, the Oreto ought to have been
condeained, and there was a miscarriage of justice in her acquittal. Not
that, on the point which the judge of the vice-admiralty court thought
the only issue in the case, namely, whetl\^er there had been any equip-
ment of the vessel within the waters of the colony, I am prepared to
quarrel with the judgment. The mistake of the judge, which led to the
acquittal of the Oreto, consisted in holding that the equipment of a
vessel in any part of the British dominions, for a purpose prohibited by
the foreign-enlistment act, would not, so long as the property in it re-
mained in a British subject and had not been transferred to a foreign
398 ARBITRATION AT GENEVA.
belligerent, of which there was here no sufficient proof, form a sufficient
groaud of condemnation in any court of competent authority, within
whose jurisdiction the vessel might be found, though no part of such
equipment might have taken plac^ within such jnrisdiction. Fitted cot,
equipped, or armed within British dominions, in contravention of the
statute, a vessel becomes at once forfeited by the effect of the statute,
and becomes liable to be seized and condemned as forfeited. The char-
acter of forfeiture once attaching to her remains permanently affixed to
her, and the proceeding being tn rem^ any competent court withiu whose
jurisdiction she may be may adjudge her to be the property of the
Crown, and give etfect to the seizure of her as such.
It is admitted by Her Majesty's government, upon the advice of its
law-officers, that such is the law.
It is clear that, if the judge on the trial had acted on this principle,
there was abundant evidence on which to condemn this vessel, and that
she ought to have been condemned.
That she was equipped, though not armed for war, not only when
at the Bahamas, but also when she left Liverpool, is undoubted. The
obstacle to her seizure at Liverpool w^as the absence of sufficient proof
of her being intended for a belligerent. But when it turned oat tlwt
her asserted destination for a firm at Palermo, or for the Italian govern-
ment, was a mere pretense, and that, having cleared out and shipped
her crew for Palermo and Jamaica, she never went near either, but pn»-
ceeded at on(!e to Nassau, a port conveniently situated with reference
to the coast of the Southern States; and when to these f^ict^s was added
the evidence of the statements of those who had had charge of her that
she was intended for the confederate service, evidence which acquired
additional force from the antecedent circumstances, no rational doubt
could reumin of the service for which the vessel was designed. Bad
the adjudication proceeded on right legal principles, the vessel must
clearly have been condemned.
But, when 1 am asked to sanction the imputation that the prosecu-
tion was conducted by the attorney-general in the scandalously corrupt
manner imputed to him — that he directed it with the predetermined
purpose of getting the Oreto released; that he hurried on the trial
before evidence could be obtained from Liverpool ; that he conducted
his cross-examinations so as to suppress evidence unfavorable to the
Oreto when it could be done; that he neglected to summon witnesses,
who must have been within his control, who could have shown con-
clusively that the Oreto was built for the insurgents, and was to he
converted into a vessel of war — witnesses, I may add, by the way, who,
if called, would have been privileged from answering, or certainly would
have been hostile, and whom, therefore, a counsel, in the exercise of his
discretion, would scarcely think of calling — witnesses, too, who conld
have ^dded nothing as to that which the attorney- general and the judge
believed to be the essential matter to be proved — namely, an equipment
of the vessel in the port — and when I am asked to ascril>e to a judge
the disgraceful partiality imputed to Mr. Lees, I must refuse my assent
to imputations which go to tix a stigma on the character of high legal
functionaries, who are not her^ to defend themselves, on grounds which
appear to me of the most shadowy and unsubstantial character. These
imputations of scandalous dereliction of duty in a public» prosecutor,
and of gross partiality in a judge, are of a very grave and serious char-
arcter. I must express my opinion that they ought never to have been
made, more especially in the tone of careless and offensive levity in
which they are presented to us in the pages of the American case. Yew
OPINIONS OF SIR ALEXANDER COCKBURN. 399
things of the kind, I can say with truth, ever gave me more pain th<in
the perusal of the observations in that document relating to this part
of the case.
I say this the more, because it appears to mo that these accusations
were unnecessary to the case of the United States. There was a mis-
carriage of justice on the trial of the Florida. If that miscarriage can
he imputed to the British government as negligence, so as to render it
responsible, the Government of the United States is entitled to the
heneflt of it, no matter whether the miscarriage arose from corrupt
design or mistake of law. It would surely have been sufficient to show
the judgment to be wrong without assailing men's characters by the
imputation of base and evil motives and corrupt disregard of duty.
1 have yet to consider whether any default on the part of ller Majesty's
fi^overnment can have contiibnted to the failure of the proceedings
against the Florida. It is certain that, as soon as the fact of the seizure
of the vessel and the institution of the suit was communicated to the
government at home, they approved of and ratified what had been done,
aud directed that Commander Hickley, as the prosecutor, should be in-
demnified against all the expenses of the suit. Instructions were given
that any witnesses from Liverpool, who could give evi<lence material to
the case, should be sent to Nassau. But when the evidence came to be
looked into by Sir R. Phillimore, who had then succeeded to the office
of Qaeen's advocate, it turned out that the Liverpool witnesses could
really add nothing to the evidence already forthcoming at Nassau.^
Their evidence went to prove that the vessel, when she left Liverpool,
was equipped so as to be capable of being armed ; but to prove this, no
evidence was needed. The fact could not be disputed ; if it had been,
there was the vessel at Nassau to speak for herself.
The Liverpool evidence would, indeed, have established that the Oreto
had cleared out on what after- events showed to have been a pretended
and fictitious voyage — no doubt a most material fact ; but of this again
abundant evidence was forthcoming, from the evidence of the crew, who
had signed articles for the voyage to Palermo and Jamaica. The evi-
dence was, therefore, unnecessary ; what is more, had it been forthcom-
ing, it would have proved unavailing, by reason of the judge holding
the absence of equipment at Nassau to be fatal to the exercise of his
jurisdiction to condemn the vessel.
It is complained that the attorney-general hurried on the trial to avoid
the evidence of the Liverpool witnesses. Now, as I have just remarked, no
witnesses were sent, or were thought by Sir R. Phillimore of sufficient im-
portance to be sent for the purpose of the trial ; which is a sufficient answer
to this head of complaint. It is complained that Maffit and other persons
connected with the Oreto were not called on the trial ; and this head of
charge is also dwelt upon by M. Staempfli, as one of the grounds of his
judgment. But this was a matter on which it was for the public pros-
ecutor to exercise his discretion.
In the first place, the witnesses would of course have been hostile,
and it is not usual with English advocates to call witnesses known to be
adverse ; they leave them to be called on the other side, that they may
have the a<l vantage of cross-examining them, which the}" are not per-
mitted to do if they produce them themselves. Had tlie attorney-general
culled these witnesses himself, the complaint would probably have taken
the opposite form. It would then have been said that he had called
witnesses from the enemy's camp for the purpose of damaging his own
case.
^ British Appeudix, vol. i, pp. 30-36.
400 ARBITRATION AT GENEVA.
In the second place, as these witnesses, if mixed ap in a transaction
involving a breach of the foreign-enlistment act, such as was involved
in this suit, would have been liable to be prosecuted and punished, they
would, by English law, have been privileged from giving evidence at
all.
Thirdly, all that these persons, if called, could have proved, was that
the vessel was intended for the confederate service. But this, in the view
unfortunately taken by the judge, that equipment within the local limits
of his jurisdiction was indispensable as the foundation of his authority
to condemn, would obviously have availed nothing, and therefore do
detriment can have arisen on the result from its not being produce4l.
There is an observation of the houorable arbitrator, M. Staempfli,
namely, that the witnesses on the trial were not examined on oath, which
it is necessary to correct, lest it should go forth to the public that the
attorney-general and the judge were so unmindful or ignorant of their
d uty as to allow the witnesses to be examined without the sanction of an
oath. This statement must have been founded on an oversight ; every
witness called is shown by the report of the trial to have been sworn
before he was examined. I am sure the honorable gentleman will regret
* his mistake.
The Oreto ought to have been condemned. She escaped condemna-
tion byreason of a mistake ou a matter of law of the judge before
whom she was brought for condemnation. Can such a failure be
ascribed to' the government ? The question is one of serious impor-
tance. I have already stated my views on it in an earlier stage of these
remarks.
But a further charge of negligence is brought against the govern-
ment of the Bahamas by reason of the Oreto having received her arma-
ment in the waters of the colony. The facts are as follows :
Having been released by the court of admiralty, the Oreto cleared
out as a merchant-vessel for Saint John's, New Brunswick, in ballast,^
the port for which vessels intending to run the blockade usually cleared.
On the 7th of August the vessel went out, into the neighborhood of Hog
Island, to try her steam.^ She was at that time very short-handed. It
appears, from the letter of the United States consul to Mr. Seward of
the 6th of September, that her crew at that time was ^^ a very small one^
and that the officers expressed great doubts of being able to man her
sufficiently for their nefarious purposes."^ It is stated in the United
Stiites case that the Oreto lay outside, with a hawser attached to one of
Her Majesty's ships of war.
In a letter of the United States consul of the 9th of August, that
gentleman writes to Mr. Seward as follows :
Unitkd States Consulatb,
NaaaaUf New PromdenoCf August 9, 18G2.
Sir : I have the honor to inform yon of the arrival off this port, yesterday mominf^,
of the United States steamship R. R. Cnyler, Winslow commander, eight days from
Boston. The steamer Oreto had left this harbor the day previons and anchored off
Hog Island ; bnt early on the morning of the Cayler's arrival she got nnder way^ and
kept ^* backing and filling " around that vessel while she lay off the port. Seeing thest
suspicious movements of so suspicious a vessel. Captain Winslow concluded not to
leave his ship, but sent a boat for me, and I promptly joined him on board, giving him
all the information in my power. He conclnded to stand over for the Northwest
Passage, as I advised that course as the most likely method of trapping the Onto,
which vessel is reported to be bound for Charleston.
___^ . J —
* British Appendix, vol. i, p. 58.
^ United States Documents, vol. vi, p. 305; British Appendix, vol. v, p. 50.
^ United States Docnments, vol. vi, p. 307.
OPINIONS OP SEtt ALEXANDER COCKBURN. 401
Shortly after the Cayler bad disappeared the Oreto came to anchor off the mouth of the
harbor, and Her Majesty's steamer Peterel, Watson commander, went ont and anchored
near her as " a protection aeainst the Yankees cntting out the privateer."
Last nic^ht guns and shells were transported to the Oreto by the schooner Prince
Alfred, which has been purchased by the Confederate States agent, Laiitte, for a tender
OQ the British confederate ships.
A person landing at Nassau, ignorant of facts, would certainly think that this was
EDgiand's war, from the activity of the people here to forward supplies to the rebels.
I have, (&c.,
SAMUEL WHITING.^
Hon. William H. Seward,
Secretary of State.
Full explanation of the citcumstances referred to, so far as the
Peterel is concerned, is given in two letters of Captain Watson, who
was in command of the ship in qnestion, Her Majesty's ship Peterel, in
answer to an inquiry from the admiralty in consequence of this state-
ment:
Her Majesty's Ship Pembroke,
Sheeme88j March 22, 1872.
Sir : I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of yonr letter dated 19th iustaot,
with its inclosnre from Admiral Sir Alexander Milne, dated 18th March, 1872.
In reply, I beg leave to report that I perfectly remember the circumstance con-
nected with the British steam- vessel, called the Oreto, that had been placed in the
vice-admiralty court at Nassau, New Providence, by Commander Hick ley, of Her
M^esty's ship Greyhound, and that after a trial of some length she was released.
I remember receiving a communication from his excellency the governor of the Baha-
mas, to the effect that there were two American ships of war under steam inside the
bar, and that he would be glad if I could put myself in personal communication with
their captains, and offer them the customary hospitalities. On receipt of his excel-
lency's communication, or as soon after as the tide permitted, I proceeded in He-
Majesty's ship under my command, under steam, across the bar, and went on board thr
United States steamship of war R. R. Cuyler, where I had a long and friendly convere
sation with her captain. Winslow, I think, was his name.
At the time I was on board the R. R. Cuyler, the Oreto, with two other British ships,
were steamins up and down the coast abreast Hog Island, trying their machinery. The
Oreto certainly was, as I know she came out for that pnrjpose, it being the first day she
had bad ber steam up since being placed in the vice-admiralty court.
The two United States steamers of war, having declined the hospitalities of the port,
proceeded t'Oward Abaco, as far as I can remember, and I anchored the Peterel outside
the bar of Hog Island, the tide or lateness of the date preventing my recrossing it.
Having anchored as above stated, a boat came to me from the Oreto, asking for the
assistance of some men, under the following circumstances:
A man, who stated he was the master in command of the Oreto, said he was very
short-handed, and wanted to anchor for about two hours to adjust his machinery, but
if he anchored outside he had not sufficient crew to weigh his anchor, aud beggod I
would assist him by lending him men.
I declined lending bim any men, but told him he might hold on astern of the Peterel,
and I would give htm a line for that purpose.
About 6.30 or 7 p. m., having seen the Oreto fast, holding on by one of our hawsers, I
went down to dinner, and when I came on deck again she was gone.
I bad told the master that she must go out of our waters before the tide slacked.
This small act of courtesy I considered a duty that I should have extended to any
ship, British or foreign, and until the receipt of your communication never gave it a
second thought ; in fact, I must have considered it too trivial to mention in my letters
of proceeding, which at that time were full of matter of far greater interest.
In conclusion, I may remark that the only reason I bad for refusing to send men on
board was in consequence of the prevalence of yellow fever in the merchant shipping
at Nassau, and I had prohibited all communication, as far as practicable, with them.
I have, &c.y
G. W. WATSON,
CaptainA
Vrksos LU6HINGTON, Esq., Admiralty,
1 United States Appendix, vol. vi, p. 304.
2 British Appendix, vol. v, p. 50.
26 B
402 ARBITRATION AT GENEVA.
Her Maje8ty'8 Ship Pembroke,
Sheemess, Mmxk 31,lt<72.
Sir: With reference to my letter of the 22d instant, I wish to make the following
alt^nition in paragraph 6:
1. Having anchored as above stated, no communication of any sort took place bet"w^eeii
Her Majesty's ship Peterel and the British nuTchant-ship Oreto, nntil the following
evening, (Saturday,) when a boat came alongside from the Oreto, asking for the assist-
ance. * » • • « f he remainder of the iiaragraph and letter remains the
same.
2. When I sent my letter of the 22d, I had not my private journal or letter with me.
3. I wish to add also to my former letter that I never had any other communication,
direct or indirect, with the Oreto, or any one connected with her, except as set forth in
my othcial correspondence.
I have, &.C.,
J. J. W^ATSON,
Captain.^
V. LUSHINGTON, Esq.,
Secretary of the Admiralty,
We now see how unfoiiDcled was Mr. Whiting's suspicion as to tlie
intentions of the Peterel.
The Oreto being in this position, on the 9th of August a small steamer
called the Prince Alfred, having been loaded with the armament intended
for the Oreto, w hich had been brought out partly in the steamer BahaDia,
partly in other vessels, having also cleared out for Saint John's, left
Nassau, as if with the intention of running the blockade.* The Prince
Alfred having passed the Oreto, the latter soon afterward let go tbe
hawser, and put to sea; and having overtaken the Prince Alfred, took
her in tow, when both vessels proceeded to Green Cay, a small desert
island, lying sixty miles south of Nassau, on the edge of the Great Ba-
hama Bank, wholly uninhabited, and only frequented at times by fish-
ermen. There, out of sight of every one, the armament of the Oreto
was transferred to her from the Prince Alfred, the confederate flag was
hoisted, and the Oreto thenceforth received the name of the Florida.'
It had been surmised in the colony that the Prince Alfred was taking
out the armament of the Oreto, but the matter went no further than
surmise. The harbor was full of shipping, and vessels were leaving
every day loaded with contraband of war for the purpose of running
the blockade.
Mr. Whiting, as we have seen, had stated it as a fact in his letter of
the 9th. In a later letter to Mr. Seward of the 12th he speaks with
less certainty. He says:
On the 9th, the schooner Prince Alfred, which had been purchased by Lafitte, th<*
confederate agent here, left this port, and it wjis currently reported and generally b«^
lieved that she had on board the armament for the Oreto, and as that vessel left the
same night, (both clearing for Saint John^s,) I think it probable.
I have given full details of these movements to the commanders of the Adiroodack
and Cuyler, and also sent such information to the ditierent consulates.^
On the 16th, a report of the two vessels having gone to Green Cay
appears to have reached Nassau.
Mr. Whiting writes on that day :
■ The Oreto is reported to have gi»ue to Green Cay, about fifty miles southwest from
Providence Island, and it is also reported that the schooner Prince Alfred has gon^
there to deliver to the Oreto her piratical armament.
I have sent dispatches to the United States cruisers by the best channels open to
me.'^
1 British Appendix, vol. v, p. 51.
« United States Documents, vol. vi, p. 324.
3Ibid., pp. 307, 319-231.
* Ibid., p. 305.
6 Ibid.
OPINIONS OF SIR ALEXANDER COCKBURN. 403
The fact did not, however, become actually known at Nassau till the
6th of September, when certain men, who had been engaged at Nassau
to go out in the Oreto for the purpose of assisting in transferring the
guns and arms from the Prince Alfred, having returned to Nassau, gave
to the American consul an account of what had happened at Green
Cay.i
That, till a week after the vessels had left, no one in the colony had
any idea of an intention to transfer the armament in any place in the
Bahamas, is plain. So far from expecting anything of the kind, Mr.
Whiting expressly states, in his letter of the 9th, that he " advised Cap-
tain Winslow to stand out for the northwest Providence Channel, as the
most likely method of trapping the Oreto, as she was reported to be
bound for Charleston." Upon the faith of this belief, Mr. Whiting, as
he tells us, '^gave full details of these movements to the commanders
of the two American ships of war, the Adirondack and Cuyler.'*^
What, then, is the negligence complained of in respect of the arming
of the Oreto within the waters of the colony! In the American case
the argument is put thus :
The arrangements for arming were made in the harbor of Nassau, and the two ves-
sels left that port almost simultaneously, and proceeded to Greeu Cay together. The
purpose for which they went was notorious iu Nassau. This was so palpable an eva-
sion that the act should be assumed as having taken place in the harbor of Nassau.'''
This is a very adroit way of putting the case, but is it a just one! la
the first place, it is a great deal too much to assume that it was ^< noto-
rious" that the Prince Alfred had on board the armament of the other
vessel. The consul puts it no higher than that it was so reported, and
the government could not act on mere report. The fact was never said,
to have been notorious till 1865, three years later, when Mr. Kirkpatrick,.
the then consul, who knew nothing of the facts when they happened,
thought proper so- to state.*
But the argument further puts it as though the purpose of going to
Green Cay was notorious ; whereas we now know that neither the con-
sul nor any one else had the remotest idea that the transfer of the arma-
ment was intended to be effected within the limits of the colony. The
consul believed that both vessels were going to Charleston. Can it be
said that the governor ought to have sent a British ship of war to ac-
company the two ships some sixty miles or more, till clear of the waters,
of the Bahamas, to prevent the possibility of a violation of neutrality in
this respect f
But then it is said, ''The act was committed within British jurisdic-
tion, and was therefore a violation of the first clause of the first rule of
the treaty."
But; with submission, the act is not necessarily within the first mle of
the treaty because it was committed in British jurisdiction. To bring
it within the first rule of the treaty it must be shown that there was a
want of due diligence in not preventing the act so done, and of this I find
no proof in the American documents.
To be sure, our honorable colleague, Mr. Staempfli, in the grounds
of his judgment, says :
Que Green Cay ^tait ^oign6 et peu Mquent^; cette objection est d'autant moins
importante que tout ce qui se fit h Green Cay partit de Nassau, et pouvait fort bien
s'apercevoir depuis ce dernier endroit.
* United States Documents, vol. vi, p, 306.
«Ibid., pp. 304, 305.
3 United States Case, p. 439.
* Uuited States Document s, vol. vi, p. 327.
404 ARBITRATION AT GENEVA.
I confess I do not quite nnderstand what is meant by tbis. I do not
suppose M. Staeuipfli can mean that what was done at Green Cay conld
be seen at Nassau, sixty miles off. I must, therefore, take it that what he
means is, that the loading of the Prince Alfred and the nearly simulta-
neous departure of the two ships from Nassau could have been seen at
Nassau — which, as it strikes me, is a self-evident proposition. But if be
means that, because the cargo of the Prince Alfred consisted of guns and
arms that might be transferred to the Oreto, therefore the authorities
ought to have stopped the Prince Alfred, the answer is that, until snch
transfer had actually taken plaee, or was about to take place, in British
waters, the authorities had no power to seize or detain the vessels.
The Prince Alfred had a perfect right, subject to the chance of cap-
ture, to take arms to a belligerent port. There was nothing to show that
she was not about to do so. The American consul believed she was.
What authority had the government to assume the contrary ?
Lastly, M. Staempfli makes it a matter of reproach to the local gov-
ernment that no prosecution was instituted against the master of the
Prince Alfred.
I must observe that this tribunal has nothing whatever to do with the
question of whether Her Majesty's government should or should not
have directed a prosecution in this or that particular instance. Thon^h
this is a point which has more than once been dwelt upon, it is wholly
irrelevant to our inquiry.
. However, let us see how the facts stand in this respect. On the 8th
of September Mr. Whiting, having seen the men who had returned from
the Oreto, and having obtained a deposition from them, writes to the
governor:
I have the honor to ioform your excellency that I have good anthority for stating
that the schooner Prince Alfred, of Nassau, took the Oreto's armament from this port
and discharged the same on board that steamer at Green Cay, one of the Bahamas.
That the Oreto afterward left Green Cay with the secession fag flying at her peak.
That the Prince Alfred has returned to this port, and now lies at Cochrane's Anchora^^
and 1 am credibly informed that her captain is again shipping men to be sent to the
Oreto, in direct contravention of the foreign-enlistment act.
I earnestly urge upon your excellency the propriety of instituting some inquiry into
these matters, and of preventing acts so prejudicial to the interests of the friendly Gov-
ernment which I have the honor to represent.*
To which the colonial secretary answers :
Colonial Office, Na8$au, September 9, 1862.
Sir: In reply to your letter of the 8th instant, directed to the governor, I am in-
structed by his excellency to inform you that, if you feel assured that you have suffi-
cient credible evidence to substantiate your allegation, and will put yoar evidence
in the hands of the attorney-general, his excellency will direct a prosecution against
the captain of the Prince Alfred, or others who may have been guilty of violating the
foreign-enlistment act.
But his excellency has no aatlMirity to take any steps against the Oreto, which is oat
of his excellency'^ jurisdiction,
I have, &c.,
C. R. NESBITT,
Colonial Secretarrf^
Instead of putting his evidence into the hands of the attorney-general,
who, of course, was not himself in the possession of any, Mr. Whiting
allowed the matter to drop. He probably thought, and thought rigbtlv,
that it would profit the United States Government very little to punish
this man.
Another charge in respect of this vessel is that Maffitt, her commander,
» British Appendix, vol. i, p. 87.
OPINIONS OF SIR ALEXANDER COCKBURN. 405
when at Nassian, induced about forty men to enlist on board An<>fedr«:ruitinent
the Oreto. The United States case, witbout more, sets this *••'""'
dowu as a violation of the second rule of the treaty, but is wholly silent
as to any negligence of the local government in this behalf.
M. Staempfli, nevertheless, but without any reference to facts showing
negligence, states, as a ground of his judgment, that the manning of the
Oreto at Niissau is to be imputed to the negligence of the British author-
ities. In the firat place, it does not appear that the authorities knew
anything whatsoever about the matter. In the second place, the Oreto,
at the time these men were engaged, had not adopted the character of
a shii» of war ; it was not known that she would do so ; it was not known
to the local government, or even to Mr. Whiting, that she had been made
over to the confederate government; it was not known that Maffitt had
taken possession of her as their officer; Dnguid, who had brought her
out, still remained apparently the master of her; her former crew had
all left her ; the crew she had engaged were wholly insufficient as a
fighting crew, and there was not, and could not be, any present purpose
of using her as a lighting ship ; it was believed she was going to run
the blockade. If that fact had turned out to be true, the allowing her
to hire a crew would have been perfectly legitimate, and could not have
been prevented.
Was the vessel to be kept at Nassau permanently for want of a crewt
It is quite true that, by the second rule of the treaty, a neutral gov-
ernment is not to permit its ports or waters to be used by a belligerent
for the recrnitment of men. But at this time, as I have already re-
marked, though it was known that the vessel was intended for the con-
federate government, it was not known that she had been transferred to
them, still less that she was about to be used for belligerent purposes,
which, indeed, she could not be till a different crew could be obtained.
Till then she might be liable to capture as contraband of war, but she
would not be liable to seizure as for a breach of the municipal law.
I confess I do not see the negligence which M. Staempfli's keener
sight is enabled to discover.
When the Florida had taken in her armament at Oreen Gay, the crew
shipped at Nassau being altogether inadequate for the ves- rxmij^^a^timT.
sel as a ship of war, she proceeded to the port of Cardenas, '"• "'*" ^■^•
in Cuba, where she remained till the 3Ist of August. She there at-
tempted to ship a crew, but the matter having come to the knowledge
of the authorities, the officer in command repudiated the transaction,
and left the i)ort without any increase of his numbers.^ Unable to keep
the sea for purposes of war with so insufficient a crew, the Florida ran
past the hostile cruisers, though challenged and fired at, and succeeded
in getting into the confederate port of Mobile, where she arrived on the
4th of September.'
She remained in the port of Mobile upwards of four months, at the end
of which time, having shipped a crew, she was sent out, on the 15th of
Jannary, 1863, under the command of Maffitt, as a confederate ship of
war.3
A grave question here presents itself, whether Great Britain, even if
open to the imputation of want of due diligence in respect ^ .^^ ^ ^^^^
of the original equipment of the Oreto, or of her arming at ''*^^];^f'^%^;^^^^
Green Cay, can properly be held responsible for the acts of ""°"'°*"***
this ship subsequently to her entiy into Mobile.
It is all-important to bear in mind that the original equipment of this
^ Ignited States DocameDts, vol. \i, p. 331.
•Ibid., p. l«-<i.
'British Appendix, vol. i, pp. 117, 120, 122.
406 ARBITRATION AT GENEVA.
vessel, though an offense against the manicipal law of Great Britain,
was not, there being, up to the tirae she arrived at the Bahamas, no
present intention of war, an oitense against international law. All the
power which the government could exercise against her, in respect of
any offense against the municipal law, was such as was derived from
that law ; that is to say, from the foreign-enlistment act. Now, all that
the latter empowered the government to do was to seize the vessel and
to bring her before a competent court for condemnation. If, when sach
a procee<ling has been adopted, it results in the acquittal and release of
the vessel, the matter becomes res judicata^ the original vice becomes
purged, and no further proceeding in rem can be had. A ship cannot
be seized and brought into court again and again when once it has been
decided by a competent court that she was not liable to seizure and
condemnation at all. After the Oteto had been thus acquitted, all
power of further seizure, as for an infraction of the foreign-enlistment
act in her original equipment, was at an end. I grant that the right of
a belligerent to redress for a breach of neutrality against international
law would not be affected by a judicial proceeding under the municipal
law ; but, there having been here, according to my view, no more than
a breach of the municipal law, all that the belligerent could possibly ex-
act was that the municipal law should be put in force by a proceeding
against the vessel. When under such a proceeding the vessel had been
acquitted, the matter was at an end.
It will be said that a second offense was committed in British juris-
diction by the arming of this vessel at Green Cay ; and this may be so;
but here again we have, in like manner, no breach of neutrality accord-
ing to international law, if, owing to the deficiency of the crew, there
was no present intention of applying the ship to the purpose of war.
There is a decision of the Suprenie Court of the United States which
c«eof thein.ted '8 in polut to thc prcscut question, in the case of the United
su,«r*.D.<iu.nr,. Qtatcs VS. Dc Quiucy, rcportcd in the 6th volume of Peters's
Keports, page 445.^
In that case the defendant was indicted, under the third section of the
American act of 1818, for having been concerned in fitting out a vessel
called the Bolivar, afterward Las Dainas Argentinas, with intent that
such vessel should be employed in the service of the United Provinces
of Eio de la Plata against the subjects of the Emperor of Brazil, with
whom the United States were then at peace. The vessel in question,
originally a pilot-boat, had been fitted out at Baltimore for the defend-
ant and one Armstrong, and adapted for carrying a gun. She sailed
from Baltimore to the island of St. Thomas, Armstrong being on board
as part owner and agent for the other owners. On the way to St.
Thomas, Armstrong told a witness that it was bis intention and wish
to employ the vessel as a privateer, but that he had no funds. He spoke
of the difficulty of getting any, and said he could not tell, until he got
to the West Indies, whether he should be able to procure any. After
negotiating for two or three days at Bt. Thomas, Armstrong suc-
ceeded in obtaining funds ; the Bolivar was fitted out as a privateer ; and,
Armstrong having provided himself with a commission from the Buenos
Ayres government, the vessel, under the name of Las Damas Argen-
tinas, cruised under the flag of that government, and took several prizes.
Two questions presented themselves for the decision of the court as to
the direction which should be given to the jury. The first was whether,
to constitute an offense within the act, it was necessary that the vessel
should have been armed when she left Baltimore, the decision on which
^ See also British Apxieudix, vol. lit, p. 92.
OPINIONS OF SIR ALEXANDER COCKBURN. 407
is immaterial to tbe pi^esent purpose. The second qaestion is tbe one
which touches the present case. Ou the part of the defendant, it was
submitted that the jury should be directed —
That if the jury believe that, when the Bolivar was fitted oat and equipped at Balti-
more, tbe owner and eqnipper intended to go to the West Indies in search of funds,
with which to arm and equip the said vessel, and had no present intention of using or
employing the said vessel as a i)rivateer, but intended, when he equipped her, to go to
the West Indies to endeavor to raise funds to prepare her for a cruise, then the defend-
ant is not guilty.
Or, if the jury believe that when the Bolivar was equipped at Baltimore, and when
she left the United States, the equipper had no fixed intention to employ her as a
{)rivateer, but had a w^ish so to employ her, the fultillment of which wish depended on
lis ability to obtain funds in the West Indies for the purpose of arming and preparing
her for war, then the defendant is not guilty.
The court said :
We think these instrnctions ought to be given. The offense consists principally in
the intention with which the preparations were made. These preparations, according
to the very terms of the act, must be made within the limits of the United States; and
it is equaliy necessary that the intention with respect to the employ mont of the vessel
should be formed before she leaves the United States; and this must be a fixed inten-
tion, not conditional or contingent, depending on some futnre arrangements. This in-
tention is a qnestion belonging exclusively to the jury to decide. It is the matiOrial
point on which the legality or criminality of the act must turn, and it decides whether
the adventure is of a commercial or warlike character.^
At the same time the court, at the instance of the prosecution, held
that if there wa^ an intention of employing the vessel as a privateer
when she left Baltimore, the offense would be complete, though subse-
quent events might have prevented that intention from being carried
into effect.
The distinction is a sound one. A present intention does not the less
exist, because unexpected events may afterward change it ; but an in-
tention which is to depend ou uncertain contingencies cannot be said to
be a present one. It is the present intention of the immediate employ-
ment of the vessel for hostile purposes which makes the sending out an
armed ship an offense against the law of natiqns, as a violation of neu-
trality, as distinguished from merely making it contraband of war. As-
suredly there must be a distinction between the two things, and I am at
a loss to see where the line can otherwise be drawn.
A similar purpose, in like manner, makes the equipping of a vessel an
offense against the municipal law, when without it — as if, for instance,
tbe vessel had been already built and equipped — the transaction would
be simply one of trade. Xow, in the case before us, it may, perhaps, be
questioued whether there was any present intention of using the Florida
as a ship of war, or whether such employment was not contingent on
her obtaining a war crew. If no crew could be got, the cruise was, as
the sequel shows, to be given up, and an attempt made to run her into
one of her own ports. Be this as it may, the belligerent purpose, if any
such existed, was frustrated by the ship not obtaining a crew, and the
voyage was lost. This being so, why, as Sir Rouudell Palmer puts it to
us, should not a vessel equipped in a neutral port; contrary to the muni-
cipal law of the neutral, be considered, like any other contraband of
war — such being. In point of international law, the true character of such
a vessel till she actually enters on her employment as a ship of war — as
no longer in delicto when she has once reached the port of the bel-
ligerent f
Having shown, as I think, abundant grounds for saying that as to
what passed at Green Cay, no possible imputation of want of due dili-
gence can attach, it seems to me that it would be carrying the doctrine
^ British Appendix, vol. iii, p. 93.
408 ARBITRATION AT GENEVA.
of neatral responsibility to an nnheard-of and most unreasonable length
to say that, after a lapse of five months, during which no vessel of
the United States was captured by the Florida, and after this vessel
had been four months in a confederate port, and had there 8hippe<l a
new crew, Great Britain is to be held liable for damage afterward done
by her.
I agree with Sir Boundell Palmer in thinking that, with her arrival at
Mobile, if not with her departure from 4;he Bahamas, the illegal voyage
upon which any liability attached came to an epd, and with it all re-
sponsibility which can reasonably be fastened on the government of
Great Britain.
But it is said that the Florida, having again come into a British port,
Que.iion wh«her ^^^ boiug kuowu to bc cngagcd in hostile operations against
the "noHda^houTd tho Uuited States, ought to have been detained, it being
hare bet-n seised on,i.. ^i ▼-»•.•! a a a » t
a«.m conuix iato a obligatory ou tho British government to stop such a vessel,
ntis.port ^y reason of the admission in the second branch of the
first rule, viz, that "a neutral nation is bound to use due diligence to
prevent the departure from its jurisdiction of any vessel intended to
cruise or carry on war" under the circumstances referred to in the first
branch ; ^^ such vessel having been specially adapted in whole or in
part, within its jurisdiction, to warlike use."
The question is one of considerable importance, as it may affect not
only the Florida, but also the Georgia and the Shenandoah, vessels as
to the equipping of which it will be impossible to fix the British govern-
ment with want of due diligence.
I cannot understand how such a contention can have been raised. It
appears to me to rest on a thorough perversion of the obvious meaning
of the rule. It is impossible to read the first rule without seeing that
it is intended to apply to two branches of one entire transaction, which
consists, first, in allowing the vessel to be equipped, next in allowing
her to depart ; the second branch of the rule being intended to meet a
case in which a vessel may have been equipped in such a manner as to
elude the diligence of the authorities, but where there may be an oppor-
tunity, on her character being discovered, to arrest her before she has
quitted neutral waters.
The second branch of the rule is obviously intended to apply to the
first departure of a vessel — that is to say, its departure from a neutral
port before passing into the hands of a belligerent government, and to
that alone.
It is absurd to suppose that, if it had been intended that Gre«t Brit-
ain should be held liable for not having seized these vessels on their
re-entering her ports, this would not have been expressly stated, esi>e-
cially when it is remembered that this might have been virtually to admit
liability in respect of all these vessels, if shown to have been specially
adapted for war within British territory, for everyone of them returned
to a British port at an early period of its career. It is plain that it
never could have entered into the mind of 'the British ministry that the
rule would be treated as applicable to anything beyond the first dei)art-
ure of the vessel.
The moral bearing; of the question has been admirably points out in
Sir E. Palmer's argument :
It would have become the plain duty of any neutral state which had entered into
Buch an en;;n^enient to give notice of it beforehand to all belligerent i>owere, before it
could be put in force to their prejudice, it is impossible that au act, which would l>e
a breach of public faith andol international law toward one bellifferent, could l>e held
to constitute any part of the ^^ diligence due^^ by a neutral to the other belligerent. The
rule says nothing of any obligation to exclude this class of vessels^ when ouce comuiis-
OPINIONS OF SIR ALEXANDER COCKBURN. 409
flioned as public ships of war, from entrance into neatral ports npon the onlinary foot-
ing. If they were so exclnded by proper notice, they would not enter ; and the rule
(in that case) could never operate to prevent thi^ir departure. If they were not so
excluded, instead of being ** due diligence/' it would be a flagrant act of treachery and
wrong to take advantage of their entrance, in order to effect their detention or capture.
Can Her Majesty be sup|H>sed to have con8ent«d to be retrospectively judged as wanting
in doe diligence, because, not having exclnded these confederate ships of war from her
ports by any prohibition or notice, sh«^ did not break faith with them, and commit an ont-
rageon every principle of justice and neutrality by their seizure f The rules themselves
had DO existence at the time of the war; the confederates knew, and could know, noth-
ing of tbem ; their retrospective application cannot make an act ex post facto ** due,"
upon the footing of ** diligence,'' to the one party in the war, which, if it had been act-
Dally done, wonld have been a wholly unjustifiable outrage against the other.
And this.being so, it may safely be asserted that the United States
Government mast have framed the rules with a like mind ; for it would
be to give them credit for sharp practice indeed, if, while the British
government agreed to the rule, on the supposition that its application
was to be limited to the first departure of an offending vessel, the
United States should be at liberty to insist on its application, toties
qiiotiesj to every subsequent departure. I will say no more than that the
coDstraction thus sought to be put on the second branch of the first rule
is quite preposterous.
Bat it is said, in the second place, that the equipment and sending
out of an arme<l vessel from the port of a neutral being a violation ot
its territory and neutral rights, and therefore a hostile act, Great Britain
bad the right to seize these vessels on their again coming within her
jurisdiction, and was bound to do so, to prevent them from continuing
to make war on vessels of the United States.
The answer of the British government is threefold :
Ist That it had not the right, according to international law, to seize
these vessels, seeing that when they came again into British ports, they
were admitted as the commissioned ships of war of a belligerent state.
2d. That, independently of the foregoing ground, the British govern-
ment could not, as a neutral government, seize a ship of war of a bellig-
erent state for that which was not a violation of neutrality, but only of
its own municipal law.
3d. That even if it had the right, it was under uo obligation to exer-
cise it.
The first of these grounds depends on the effect of the commissions
which these vessels had in the mean time received from the Effect of commu-
government of the Confederate States as ships of war. .ion,oo.bip«orw.r.
Now, it must be t^iken as an unquestionable fact that these ships were
built, or equipped, for the de facto government of the Confederate States,
and were employed by it as regular ships of war, under the command
of offii^rs regularly commissioned. Hereupon two questions present
themselves : Were these commissions valid I If so, what was their
effect as to affording immunity to a vessel, thus commissioned, from
seizure by the government of Great Britain f
It is a familiar principle of international law that the ships of war of
a state are entitled to the privilege of exterritoriality. This jhjp, ^f ^„ „.
is a point on which leading publicists are agreed. Wheaton, »•'»«»'»'•
in his ^^ Elements de droit international,''^ writes:
ITpe arm^e on une flotte appartenant h nne puissance ^trang^re, et traversant on
Btationnaot dans les limites du territoire d'un autre ^tat, en aoiiti^ avec cette puis-
fuuice, sont ^galenient exeuiptes He la juridiction civile et criminelle du pays.
II s'ensnit que les personnes et les choses qui, dans ces trois cas, se trouvent dans les
liiuites du territoire d'uu ^tut Stranger, resteut sonmises t\ la Juridiction de V6tat
auquel elles appartienneiU, comnie si elles 6taient encore sur son territoire.
» Vol. i, p. 119.
410 ARBITRATION AT GENEVA.
SMI n*y a pas de prohibition expresse, les ports d'an 6tat sons regard^a comme ^tant
onverts anx navires de gaerre d^iue autre nation avec laqaelle cet 6tat est en paix et
amiti(^. Cesnavires, entr6s dans les port« strangers, soit en vertn de Vabseoce d'ane
prohibition, soit en vertn d'une autorisation oxpresse, 8tipul6<^ par traits, sont exempts
de la juridiction des tribunaux et des antorit^s dn lieu.
Heffter declares ships of war to be exempt from tbe territorial juris-
dictioQ of the coantry within whose waters they are.^
Sir E. Phillimore writes as follows :*
Long usage and universal custom entitle every such ship to be considered as a part
„. „ 1,. ,,. of the state to which she belongs, and to be exempt from any other ju-
risdiction ; whether this privilege be founded upon strict international
right, or upon an original concession of comity with respect to the state in its aggre-
gate capacity, which, by inveterate practice, has assumed the position of a right, is a
consideration of not much practical importance. But it is of same importance, for if tbe
better opinion be, as it would seem to be, that the privilege in question was origiDaily
a concession of comity, it may, on due notice being given, be revoked by a state, so
ill advised as to adopt such a course, which could not happen if it were a matter of
natural right. But, unquestionably, in the case of the foreign ship of war, or of the
foreign sovereign and embassador, every stat^ Vhich has not formerly notified its
departure from this usage of the civilized world, is under a tacit convention to accord
this privilege to the foreign ship of war lying in its harbors.
No writer has, however, discnssed the subject with so macb clearness
and force as M. Ortolau in his ^' Diplomatic de la mer :^
Ortolui, '-
Les btltiments de guerre an contraire, arrows par V^tat lui-mdme et pbnr sa defense;
en sont los repr^entants & I'dtranger ; leurs commandants etleurs ofBciers sont comme
des d6l6ffu6s dn pouvoir ex6cutif, et sur quelqnes points dn pouvoir jndiciaire de lear
pays. Ces bdtiments doivent done participer plelnement k Piud^pendance et ^ la son-
verainet^ de la puissance qui les arme ; ils ont droit aux respects et aux honneurs qni
sont dds h, cette souverainet6 ; c'est ceqne reconnaissent et ce que commaudeut les lois
internatinales.' ........ . .
Par cela seul que les bfttiments de guerre sont arm^s par le gouvernement d'un ^tat
ind<^pendaut, auquel ils appartienuent, que leurs commandants et leurs officier^ 8ont
des fonctionuaires publics de cet 6Uit et en exercent la puissance executive, en certains
points ni^me la puisscance jndiciaire, enfin que tout individn faisant partie de lear
Equipage, sans clistinction de grade, est un agent de la force publiqne ; ces b&timeuts,
personni^^, sont une portion de ce gouvernement et doivent Stre ind^pendants et
respeot'^s k son ^gal.
Ainsi, quel que soit le lieu oh ils se trouvent, qui que ce soit an monde, <^tranger aa
gouvernement auquel ils appartienuent, n'a le droit de sMmmiscer en rien dans ce qni
se passe c^ leur bord, et encore moins A*y pdn^trer par la force.
On exprime g^n^ralement cette r^gle par une m<Staphore pass^e en coutume, et telle-
ment accr<Sdit<5e, tellement traditionnelle, que dans la plupart des e^prit^ elle est
devenuo comme une raisou juHtificative de la proposition dont elle n'est v<^r i tablemen t
qu^nne expression figur6e. On dit que tout bAtiment de guerre est une partie da ter-
ritoire de la nation ii laquelle il appartient ; d^oii la consequence que, m6me lorsqn'il est
dans un port stranger, les offlciers, V^quipage, et tonte personue quelconqae qui se
trouve h son bord, est censdo etre, et que tout fait pass^ h bord est cens4$ pasa^ sur ce
territoirc. C'est i>ar une continuation, par une expression r6snm6e de la m^me figure
qu'on appelle ce privilege le priviI6ge on le droit d'exterrilorialit^.*
The matter is so well handled by this able writer that I am indace<l
to cite cue or two more passages :'
Ce qui est vrai, c'est que le navire est une habitation flottante, avec one population
90umise aux lois et aii gouvernement de I'^tat dont le navire a la xiationalite, et plae<i«
eons la protection de cet <^tat. Ce qui est vrai, c'est que si le navire est b&timent de
guerre, il est, eu outre, une forteresse mobile portant en son sein une portion m^mc de
la puissance publiqne de cet 6tat, des offlciers et un Equipage qui forment tons dans
leur ensemble un corps organist de fonctionuaires et d'ageuts militaires oa administra-
tifs de la nation.
» " Volkerracht der Gegenwart," J 148.
3 International Law, vol. i, p. 399.
3 Vol. i, p. 181.
* Ibid., p. 186.
* Ibid., pp. 188-X*J1.
OPINIONS OF SIR ALEXANDER COCKBURN. 411
S'il 8*af;it de naTires de gaerre, la contame Internationale est constante ; ces navires
resteut rdgis uniquement par la 80uverainet<$ de lenr pays ; lea lois, les antoritds, et les
jtindictiooB de I'^tat dans les eatix daqael ile sont mouillds lear resteut ^trang^res; ils
n^oot avec cet 6ta,t que des relations Internationales par la voie des fonotionnaires de
la locality conip^tents pour de pareilles relations. .....
Le navire de guerre portant en son sein nne partie de la puissance pnblique de I'^tat
auquel il appartient, un corps organi86 de fonotionnaires et d'agents de cetto puis-
sance dans rordre adininistratif et dans I'ordre militaire) soumettre ce navire et le
corps organist qu'il porte aux lois et aux autorit<5s du pays dans les eaux duqnel il
entre, ce serait vraiment soumettre Vune de cos puissances h I'autre; ce serait vouloir
rendre impossibles les relations maritinies d*une nation ^I'autre par bdtiments de IVtat.
II faut on renoncer k ces relations, on les admettre avec les conditions indispensables
ponr maiutenir ^ chaqne ^tat souverain son inddp^^ndance.
L'^tat propridtaire du port on de la rade pent sans doute, k IMgard des bdtimcnts de
guerre, pour lesquels il aurait des motifs de sortir des regies ordiuaires et pacifiqiies du
droit des gens, leur interdire Tentr^e deces eaux; les ysurveiller s'il croit leur prdsouce
dangereuse, on lenr enjoindre d'en sortir, de m^me qu'il est libre, quand ils sont dans
la mer territoriale, d'eraployer ik leur 6gard les moyens de sdretiS que leur voisinage
peat rendre n<^cessaires ; sauf ^ r^pondre, envers l'<$tat auquel ces vaisseanx appartieu-
nent, de toutes ces mesures qui ponrront 6tre^suivant les ^vdnements qui les auront
motiv^es, ou la mani^re dont elles auront ^t^ ex^cuU^es, des actes de d<5fense ou de
precaution l^itinie, ou des actes de m^fiauce, ou des ofifenses graves, ou mSinc des
causes de guerre ; mais taut quHl les revolt, il doit respecter en eux la souvi*rainet<^
^trang^re dont ils sont une Emanation ; il ne pent avoir, par cous<Squent, la pr^,reiisiuu
de regir les personnes qui se trouvent et les fiiits qui se passent k leur bord, ni de faire
Bar ce bord acte de puissance et de 80uverainet<$.
In the case of the Exchange, reported in Cranch's Reports, (vol. vii,
pages 135-147,) the principle that a vessel bearing the flag cm* of the e.-
and commission of a belligerent power was not within the ''••'"*''
local Jurisdiction of the neutral law, though claimed by citizens of the
neutral country as having been forcibly taken from them as prize, con-
trary to international law, was fully upheld on appeal by the Supreme
Conrt of the United States.
" By the unanimous consent of nations,'' says Chief Jnstice Marshall, ** a foreigner is
amenable to the laws of the place, but certainly, in practice, nations have not yet as-
serted their jurisdiction over the public armed ships of a foreign sovereign entering a
port open for their reception. * * * It seems, then, to the court to bo a principle
of public law that national ships of war entering the port of a friendly power open for
their reception are to be considered as exempted by the consent of that power from its
jurisdiction.^'
It has been ingeniously attempted by the counsel of the United States
to place the decision in this case and the judgment of Chief Justice
Marshall on the footing that a neutral court has no jurisdiction over a
belligerent vessel as a matter simply of judicial authority. But this is
not so; the eminent judge who delivered the judgment in that case
places the matter not on the footing of jurisdiction in a judicial point of
view, but as one of international right. In proof of which the following
passages are deserviug of the fullest attention :
A nation would justly be considered as violating its faith, although that faith may
not be expressly plighted, which should suddenly, and xcithonU previous notice, exercise its
territorial powers in a manner not consonant to the usages and received obligations of the
cirilized world. # • *
If, for reasons of state, the ports of a nation generally, or any particular port<s be
closed against vessels of war generally, or the vessels of war of any particular nation,
notice is usually given of such determination. If there be no prohibition, the ports of
a friendly nation are considered as open to the public ships of all powers with whom
it is at peace, and they are supposed to enter such ports, and to remain in them, while
allowed to remain, under the protection of the government of the place, # # •
But in all respects different is the situation of a public armed ship. She constitutes
a part of the military force of her nation ; acts under the immediate and direct com-
mand of the sovereign ; is employed by him in national olijects. He has many and
powerful motives for preventing those objects from being defeated by the interference
of a foreign state. Such interference cannot take place without affecting his power and
his dignity. The implied license, therefore, under which such vessel enters a friendly
port/ may reasonably be construed, and it seems to the court ought to be construed.
412 ARBITRATION AT GENEVA.
88 containing an exemption from thejarudiction of the sovereign within whose territory she
claims tbe rights of hospitality.
1^0 doubt the effect to be given to the commission of a belligerent
commiMion of govenimcnt must depend on its power to act as a govern-
m«re beu..erei.f. meut. Aud 1 Fepcat what I have before entieavored to make
good : namely, that where an integral portion of a nation separates
itself from the parent state, and establishes a rfe /aoto government of
its own, excluding the former government from all power and control,
and thereupon a civil war ensues, a neutral' nation is fully justified in
recognizing the government de facto as a belligerent, though it has not
as yet acknowledged it as a nation ; and that from the time of the ac-
knowledgment of its belligerent status, the government de facto acquires,
in relation to the neutral, all the rights which attach to the status of a
beUigerent of an established nationality. The practice of nations has
been uniform on this point; all the maritime nations concurred in ac-
cording to the confederate goveyiment the status and rights of a belli-
gerent. The commissions of the Confederate States must therefore be
taken to have been valid, and to have had the same force and efficacy
as the commissions of any recognized government would have had.
It has, indeed, been contended that, in the particular instance of the
vessels belonging to the Confederate States, the commissions of the gov-
ernment de facto ought not to have been respected. After having list-
ened, with the utmost attention, to the argument of Mr. Evarts, I pro-
test I am at a loss to know why. Setting aside all the idle language
that has been written and spoken about '^piracy" — as though the ships
of eleven great provinces, having an organized government, and carry-
ing on one of the greatest civil wars recorded in history, could be called
pirates — the argument comes to this : that a country, the inde^iendeut
nationality' of which has not been acknowledged, and which has not
been admitted into the fraternity of nations, has no rights of sove-
reignty, and consequently cannot by its commission exclude the right of
the local sovereign to seize one of its vessels of war if any infraction of
the municipal law has been committed in respect of it. But what is
this, practically, but to deprive the recognition of belligerency of all
the effects it was intended to have ? It is admitted among nations that
such a recognition may be made by a neutral state. Its purpose id to
invest the de facto government with the character of a belligerent power,
for the common benefit of both belligerent and neutral, without any
recognition of independence or sovereignty. The recognition would
plainly be idle if it did not carry with it one of the most important
rights incidental to a belligerent government, that of commissioning and
employing vessels of war, and of having those vessels, whea sailing
under its flag, and armed with its commissions, investeil with the privi-
leges conceded to ships of war, and therefore exempted from the juris-
diction of any neutral country in whose waters they may be.
But it is alleged that, evenassumiug the commissions to have been
Effect o .1 valid, these vessels ought nevertheless to have been seized.
Tiuh./k.ntr naJTai Tho argumcut, as I understand it, is in substance this : the
urmorjr. cqui^plug aud sending forth of a vessel from neutral terri-
tory, for the purpose of being employed in the service of a belligerent,
is a violation of the territorial rights of the neutral ; every violation of
the territory of a neutral is a hostile act; every hostile act calls upon
the neutral to vindicate its rights by force; therefore Great Britain
ought to have seized these vessels.
„ ^ , In support of this argument the following passage is cited
from Uautefeuille :
OPINIONS OF SIE ALEXANDER COCKBURN. 413
Le fait de constrnire nn Mtiment de gnerre ponr le compte d'nn bellig^rant, on de
I'anner dans let) ^tat« neutres, est nne violation da territoire. Toutes lea prises faites
Ear un b&timont de cette nature sont ill^gitimes, enqnelqno lienqu'elles aient 4t6 faitcs.
e souverain offens^ a le droit de s'en eniparer, mdme de force, si elles sont anieuiSes dans
8PS ports, et d'en reclaimer la restitution lorsqn'elles sont, comine cela arrive en g^-
n^Tol, condnltes dans las ports hors de sa Jnridiction. II peat 6galeuient rdclamer )e
desarmeiuent da b&timent i116galement arm^ snr son territoire, et nidrae le d^tenir s'il
eotre dans qnelquo lien soamis ^ sa souverainet^, jnsqa'ilt ce qu'il ait 6t4 d^sarui^.^
After which the learned author goes on to use the followiug strong
language, which, however, appears to express a view peculiar to himself,
BDd, so fiir as I am aware, shared by no other writer on international
law:
Le people neutre ne pent n^gliger I'aooomplissement de ce devoir, sans s'exposer b, la
JQsr<e vengeance de la nation a laqnelle cet abandon de ses droits porterait un grave
prdjiidice, sans lui fouruir an juste snjet de guerre. On pourrait en efFet I'accuser, avec
raison, d'abdiquer les droits desa sonverainetd, de son ind^pendance, en faveurde I'une
des parties en gnerre, aa prejudice de I'antre, et par con86qaent de manquer d'imparti-
alit^, de m^counaltre le second devoir de la neutrality.'
If, indeed, by constructing or arming a ship, M. Hautefeuille means
constructing or arming for the immediate purpose of war, so as to con-
Btitute a hostile expedition from the shore of the neutral, I entirely agree
that this will amount to a violation of neutral territory. Short of that,
it will only be a violation of the local law, and therefore will not amount
to a violation of territory. This distinction is all-important, but appears
to have been wholly lost sight of.
But even should it amount to a violation of territory, it seems mon-
strous to assert that the neutral is bound to have recourse to force, pos-
sibly to become involved in war, for the benefit of the other belligerent.
It is to be observed that M. Hautefeuille, before he came to the sub-
ject of ships, had been speaking of the violation of neutral territory by
acts of hostility, such as the taking of a ship in neutral waters.
He could hardly, I imagine, mean to go the length of saying that the
clandestine equipment of a ship for belligerent use, not amounting to a
hostile expedition, would be such a violation of the rights of the neutral
as would justify, much less necessitate, a declaration of war.
M. Ortolan discusses the subject with the calm judgment
•_.«j. .. -ii' uo Ortolan.
which distinguishes him.
It is true that his reasoning is addressed to the obligation of the neu-
tral state to insure the restoration of prizes illegally captured within its
waters ; but it is obvious that the principle he lays down applies to every
violation of neutral territory by a belligerent :
LHll^galit^ des actes d'hosttlit^ exerc^ dans les eaax territoriales d'nne paissance
neutre entralne, oomme consequence directe, rill^galit^ dea prises faites en dedans des
liniitesde ces eaux. Ces prises ne sont pas valables, soit qu'elles aient 6t6 faites par des
uavires de guerre, soit qu^^lles Taient 6t4 par des corsaires. C'est le devoir de P^tat
anqnel appartient le capteur de les restituer anx premiers propri<5t aires ; et mf^me cVst
le droit et le devoir de T^tat neutre dont le territoire a 6t6 yiol6 de prononcer lui-m6me
cette restitution si la prise se troave amende chez lui.
Toutefois la uullit^ des prises aiusi faites n'est pas tellement absolne qu'elle puisse
^tre iuvoqu^e, et que r<5tat du capteur doive la prononcer ni^uie en Tabsence de toute
r<^c1amation de la part de T^tat neutre dont on pr^t^jnd que les droit* ont 6t6 m^con-
nus. *' C'est nne regie technique des cours de prises,^' dit k ce snjet M. Wheaton, " de
ne restituer leur propriety aux r^clainantsparticuliers, en caspareil, que snr la demande
du gouvernenient neutre dont le territoire a 6t6 aiusi vioM. Cette r^gle est fond6e sur
le principe que V dtat neutre seul a 6{6 bless^ dans ses droits par nne telle capture et
que le r^clamaut ennemi n'a pas le droit de paraltre pour entralner la non-vaiidit^ de
la captnre.''
Nous adh^rons corapl^temeut h cette doctrine et & cette jurisprudence pratiqne. EUe
Concorde parfuitement avec ce que nous avons (lit ci-dessus des cas oti, ii raison des circon-
stances et de T^tat des c6tes, les actes d'hostilit^^ peuvent dtre excus<$s, bien qu'ayant eu
^ Droits et devoirs des nations neutres, vol. i. p. 295.
3 Ibid., p. 296.
414 ARBITRATION AT GENEVA.
lieu dans nne mer Httorale neutre. EUe est mAme indispensable dans le sjst^me detons
ceux qui admettent, comme nous, cette possibility d'excuse. Pnisqne la nullity dt«
Xmsesainsi faites n'a rien d'absolu, qu'elle est subordonude aux r^claniatious de IVtat
neutre, le fait est remis ii I'appr^ciation de cet 6tat. C*est h lui ^ Jn|;er sMI y a en, ou s'il
n'y a pas eu, vdritablement atteinteport4Se iiBasouverainet<^ ; sMl doit k sa propre dl}rniti^
et anx obligations d'impartialitd que lui impose sa qualitdde neutre, de i-eclamer centre
cette atteiute et de deniander que les coust^quences en soient aunnlcesou r^par^es; ou
bicn s'il peut garderle silence ctn'dlever ancune r<§clamation. S'il rdclamo, et qae sea
plaintes soient fondles, le gonvemement dn captenr doit annnler la prise ainsi faito:in
ni^pris d'nne souverainot^ nentre ; s'il ner<^clanie pas nnl n'est admis h le faire pour lui
et le gouvernement du capteur n'a pas k tenir compte de pareilles objections.*
But it is said that — ^independently of any violation of territory in the
T> of.eiim for ^^^^ of intemational relations — because the vessel was
brr^Jh'iV muiTJiiii equipi)ed and armed in defiance, or in fraud, of the muni-
cipal law of Great Britain, it was incumbent on the British
authorities to seize her when she next entered a British port. In this con-
tention there appears to be — I say it with all possible respect — ^consider-
able confusion of ideas, and a losing sight of elementary principles. I
agree with M. St<aempfli that, these vessels having been ordered by
agents of the confederate government, it is the same thing as though they
had been ordered by that government itself; and that there was, con-
sequently, in respect of them, a violation of the municipal law of Great
Britain by the confederate government itself. But it is a greatmistake
to suppose that a breach of the municipal law of a neutral country,
though relating to neutrality, becomes a violation of the territorial rights
of the neutral, because committed by a belligerent power. The charac-
ter of the offender does not change or affect the character or quality of
the offense. Nothing short of a bi*each of neutrality, according to inter-
national law, can justify a resort to forcible measures on the part of the
neutral as for a violation of his neutral rights.
Now, the equipment of the Florida in England for the service of the
confederates constituted no violation of neutrality by international law^
the vessel not having been armed, or sent out for the pi*esent purpose
of war. On her way to Nassau she would have been subject to seiziu^
as contraband of war; but that is all. In like manner, though the
arming of the vessel at the desert island of Green Gay may have been,
strictly speaking, a violation of British law, yet, there being no present
purpose of war, it was no violation of neutral territory within the rules
of international law. It was, at the utmost, a breach of the law of
Great Britain. And here the distinction should be kept in view to which
I have already referred, and which se^ms to me to have altogether been
lost sight of, namely, that a breach of the municipal law, though it may
be of a law relating to neutrality, does not constitute a breach of neu-
trality as between nations. That which, if done by a subject, would
simply amount to a breach of his own law, does not become a violation
of neutrality because done by a foreigner. Nor isit the more so because
done by a belligerent government, or the agent of such government.
Let such a government send agents to purchase ships equipped and
ready for war, notfwith any immediate purpose of using them as ships
of war ou leaving port, but that they may be conveyed -to its own
country, to be eventually used for war, if such an act is an offense
by local law, it will still be an offense against the local law alone. How,
then, can it be said that for a violation of municipal law alone a neu-
tral can seize a vessel, in respedt of which that law alone has been vio-
lated, when it has become the property of the government of another
state f No principal of the law of nations is more firmly settled or uni
versally acknowledged than that an independent sovereign or govern-
1 «
Ragles Internationales et diplomatic de la mer/' Yol. ii, p. S96.
OPINIONS OF SIR ALEXANDER COCKBURN. 415
ment — ^and, for this purpose, the government of a state, as yet acknowl-
edged only as a belligerent, must be taken to be an independent gov-
ernment— is not amenable to the municipal law of another country.
All rights, all obligations, all duties, all liabilities, as between sovereign
and sovereign, state and state, government and government, depend
wholly and solely either on express convention or on the principles and
rules of the common law of nations. How, then, in the matter of an
infraction of the municipal law only, could a neutral state have recourse,
as against a belligerent government, to the powers which that law gave
it against its own subjects alone!
But assuming even that a neutral state would be entitled to seize a ves-
sel, though armed with a commission from a belligerent power, by reason
of some offense committed against its neutrality, as a reparation for a
wrong done against itself, how can it possibly be asserted that it is under
any obligation to do so f It may be said that a nation is bound to maintain
it8 0wn sovereignty, to viudicateits honor, to maintain the inviolability of
it? territory ; and, morally speaking, this may be true; but, I ask, what
law is there which makes it obligatory on it to do this 1 A state, like
au individual, may omit to insist on its rights, among others on its right
of reparation for wrong done to it — unusquisque potest renuntiara juri pro
se eafistitfito, I cannot admit the argument that it is less free to do so,
because it is to the interest of a belligerent that it should resent a
wrong by force, and so inflict damage on his adversary. To ask for
apology or reparation is one thing; but to seize the ship of another
state, is neither more nor less than a step towards war. It is an act
which no powerful state would submit to; which would lesul to reprisals,
in all probability to wai:. It is, therefore, one which no iwwerful state
should have recourse to as against a weak one. Again, the neutral
state may be a weak one — the wrongdoing belligerent a powerful one.
The neutral may have the strongest motives for remaining at peace. Is
it to be said that, in spite of all such considerations, the neutral, who
would not have recourse to forcible measures so far as his own interests
are concerned, is nevertheless bound to do so, no matter what may be the
consequences, because the other belligerent has a right to insist on it?
Yet this is what i understand our honorable president to maintain^ I
cannot*, for my part, concur in such a view. What would be said if a
state, the neutrality of which is secured by international arrangements,
such for instance as Belgium, were to find itself in such a position ?
Would it be bound to have recourse to force because a belligerent had
had a vessel of war constructed in one of its ports without its
knowledge. I cannot think so. I adopt the conclusion of M. Ortolan.
The question whether a breach of its neutral rights shall be resented
or not is matter for the neutral state to determine. ^' C'est k lui k juger
sMl y a eu, ou s'il n'y a pas eu, v^ritablement atteinte portee ^ sa souve-
raiuet^ ; s'il doit i\ sa propre dignite et aux obligations d'impartialite que
lai impose sa qualite de neutre, de r^clamer contre cette atteinte et de de-
mander que les consequences en soient anuul^es ou r^par^es ; ou bien
s^il veut garder le silence et n^elever aucune reclamation."
No doubt a neutral state may, and in some instances ought — as, for
instance, in such a flagrant case as the capture of the Florida by the
Wachusett in the port of Bahia — to insist on redress. If the Florida
had not sunk in the meantime, Brazil would have had a right to insist
on her being set at liberty. But what if the Florida had not fortu-
nately sunk, and the United States had refused to release her on the de-
mand of Brazil ? Though the latter might, if so minded, have made
reprisals, or gone to war in vindication of her own rights, will any one
416 ARBITRATION AT GENEVA.
say that Brazil must necessarily, and as matter of obligation to the
confederate government, have gone to war with the United States !
Surely it is for a nation whose neutrality has been infringed to judge
for itself wiiether it will or will not resent it. *In some cases, as where
the disparity of force is very great, it might not think it politic to do
so. In others, where the degree of offense is comparatively slight, it
might not be thought worth while to follow the matter up. In the
present instance. Great Britain having no diplomatic relations with the
confederate government, had no opportunity of remonstrating. This is
an inconvenience which necessarily accompanies the recognition of bel-
ligerency without that of sovereignty, though the inconvenience is
counterbalanced by other weighty considerations. Being thus unable
to remonstrate, will it be said that Great Britain ought to have thrown
the weight of her arms into the contest going on between the Confederate
Slates and their more powerful opponent, because these vessels had man-
aged to get away from her shores I especially when there was very great
doubt whether, in respect of vessels armed out of British jurisdiction,
any offense had been committed against international law. Would the
world's opinion have sanctioned such a proceeding? At all events,
would not public opinion have reprobated the seizure of these vessels
as an act of unpardonable perfidy, if they had been allowed to enter
British i>orts without notice, a deliberate intention of seizing them hav-
ing been first formed ?
In truth, this contention on the part of the United Staters is entirely
an afterthought. During the whole course of the war, amid the na-
merous demands and reclamations made by the United States Govern-
ment and its representatives, it never occurred to them, so far as I am
aware, to suggest to Her Majesty's government to detain these vessels
on their entering British ports. The conclusion, then, at which I ar-
rive is that, even if Great Britain had a right by international law to
seize these vessels, she was not bound to do so, and in common honor
could not have done so without giving notice ; that the United States
had no right to insist on the seizure of them, and, at all events, never
having attempted to do so, can have no right now to claim damages by
reason of its not having been done.
But it has been said that, whether or not Great Britain had the right
T).uyof«riudin, to scizc, or whcthcr or not, having the right, she was
from nt^utrai port-, un^j^r auy obHgatiou to exercise it, or whether or not she
was bound to give notice of the intention to do so, the govermuent
should have resented the violation of its law by refusing to the delin-
quent vessels entrance into British ports.
The answer is, that the questions, whether the law of Great Britain
had been broken, and whether the vessels were, in this sense, delinquent
or not, were in each case disputable questions of mixed law and fact,
which could not in any way be investigated between Great Britain and
the Confeilerate States, and on which the opinions of high legal authori-
ties in Great Britain were known to differ. It was the right and daty
of the British government, under such circumstances, to take the coarse
which it deemed most consistent with the maintenance of a strictly im-
partial neutrality ; and if, under the infiuence of this motive, it decided
(as it did) against attempting to discriminate between the different ves-
sels bearing the public commission of the Confederate States, it acted in
the exercise of its own proper right, and violated no obligation due to
the other belligerent. The rules of the treaty of Washington are wholly
silent as to any such obligation, and the law of nations imposes none.
The question as tothe effect of a belligerent commission ia the case of
OPINIONS OF SIR ALEXANDER COCKBURN. 417
<
a vessel illegally armed in a neutral port came under the consideration
of a circuit court of the United States in the case of the United States
rs. Peters* — a case rehiting to a ship called Les Jumeaux, otherwise
the Ca»5sius. The result whs remarkable, and is deserving of serious
attention.
The vessel in question was originaMy a British cutter engaged in the
(Juineatrade. Shewaspierced for twenty guns, butouly car- <,„,. „f ^^e c.
ried four guns in broadside and two swivels. Having passed •'""
into the ownership of one Lemaitre, a Frenchman, she came into Phila-
delphia with cargo as a merchant-vessel. Lemaitre having admitted
others of his countrymen to joint ownership, it was resolved to augment
the force of the vessel with a view to her sale to the French government,
then at war with p]ngland, as a ship of war. Tlie attempt having been
prevented by the United States Ixovernment, the vessel left Philadel-
phia in ballast ; but some sixty miles down the river took in more guns
and a considerable number of men. There was no doubt that what was
clone amounted to a breach of the neutrality act of 179-1:. One Guinet,
who had Uikeii part in arming the vessel, was indicted under that act,
found guilty, and was sentenced to a year's imprisonment and a fine of
The vessel \«iis sold to the French government and duly commissioned
as a vessel of war. Coming into IMiiladelphia the year after, with a prize,
no less than three suits arose ; one in rem for restitution of the prize ;
one in perHonam against Davis, the officer in command of the Cassias,
tor damages for taking the prize vessel, neither of which are in point to
the present purpose; in the third, a Mr. Ketland instituted a suit to
have the vessel declared forfeited. The act of lTt)4 giving half the value
of forfeited vessels to the informer, Ketland Hied his information for the
forfeiture, as it is technically termed qui tam^Xov the beuelitas well of the
treasury jis himself, on the ground of the illegal equipment of the vessel
the year before. On M. Adet, the French minister, writing to complain
of this procedure, Mr. Pickering, then Secretary of State, replied that
the executive could not take this case, any more than it could the pre-
ceding one relative to the same vessel, from the judiciary ; and that
the court had decided that it could not, in this penal proceeding, ac;-
«*ept security for the Cassius in lieu of the vessel herself. He stated
the uncjuestioned fact that the Cassius was, the year before, fully equip-
ped and armed in the United States, and that the acts done had been
already decided (in the trial of The United States vh, Guinet) to be a
violation of their laws of neutrality ; and he added that the French
minister ought not to be surprised tliat this matter should become a
subject of judicial inquiry, and the effect of the subsequent alleged
transfer to the French government a matter of judicial decision.
The United States Attorney was instructed by the Government to
intervene in these suits, and to suggest for the consideration of the
court, a»s matter of defense, the transfer of the vessel to the French
«»:overnment, and her having been commissioned by the latter, which he
<li(l in the form of a suggestion. In the suit in rem against the vessel,
Jit the term of the court in April, 170(>, the Secretary of State, Mr. Pick-
ering, requeste<l M. Adet to furnish the evidence of the bona fide trans-
fer to the French government, for the use of the United States attorney.
^I. Adet replied, declining to furnish proofs to the judiciary of a side
a:iil payment, saying that his relations were solely with the Executive.
• Keporte<l in IJ DaUas, 121, and in a note to Dana's edition of Wlieatou, reininted in
the I'nited States Documents, vol. vii, p. \^,
27 B
418 ARBITRATION AT GENEVA.
lie, liowever, gave a certificate that the vessel was a French public sliip,
duly commissioned, to which he afterward, on request of the attoruey,
added the date of her acquiring that character. Mr. Rowle, the United
States attorney, expressed his fear that this certificate would not be
accepted as legal proof; but M. Adet declined to furnish any other, as
beneath the dignity of his nation, and informed the Secretary of State
that the French government had ordered him to ascertain, in conference
with the Secretary, the reparation for the injuries and damages from the
])roceedings in the matter of this vessel ; and that he furnished tbe
certificate as a courtesy to the United States Government and not for a
cause in which the French government had any further interest In
October term, 1796, the motion of the United States attorney for a dis-
missal of the proceedings came on for argument. At the hearing,
another question presented itself under the statute, namely, whether
the circuit court could take cognizance of informations for forfeiture
under the act of 1791; and the court dismissed the proceedings on the
ground that such a suit must be instituted in the district court, and.
consequently, that the circuit court had no jurisdiction in tbe cause.
Thus, no decision was actually given by a court of law on theim
portant question, how far the commission of a belligerent power would
be a bar to the seizure of a vessel illegally equipped or^ armed in the
port of a neutral. But, on the other hand, the intervention of the Gov
ernment, through its chief legal officer, with-a suggestion to the court
in which the suit was pending, that such a commission afforded a suffi-
cient defense, shows, beyond all possibility of doubt, that the United
States Government considered the question as one which it ought to
raise in favor of the belMgerent who had acquired property in the ves-
sel, and had commissioned it, notwithstanding that there had been a
fiagrant violation of its own neutrality and of its own law ; and, what
is of still greater importance, that the United States Government would
not itself seize,^ or be party to the seizure and condemnation of a vessel
under such circumstances, but, on the contrary, did its best to oppose
it. With what pretense of reason or justice, then, can it be said that
Great Britain was bound to do, for the benefit of the United States, in
the case of the Florida, what the Aiyerican Government not only refused
to do, but opposed being done, under precisely the same circumstances?
I proceed to the consideration of another subject which arises, in the
Ptnyofb.n,«rr.nt f^f^t iustancc, wlth rcspcct to the Florida, but which applies
Vn\r HUpiKl."of equally to the whole series of vessels with which we have
co.i there. |.Q (leiil, namely, that of the entry and stay of belligerent
ships of war in the ports and waters of a neutral, and of the supplie?*
w hich may be there atlbrded to them.
There are certain points ou^ which all writers are unanimous, and, as
I had till now imagined, all nations agreed.
A sovereign has absolute dominion in and over his own ports and
Power of neutral waters. Hc cau permit the entrance into them to the ships
.<n,r.,!ru q^ othcr uatious, or refuse it; he can grant it to some, can
deny it to others ; he can subject it to such restrictions, conditions, or
regulations as he pleases. But, by the universal comity of nations, iu
the absence of such restrictions or proliibition, the ports and waters of
every nation are open to all comers. Ships can freely enter, and freely
stay; can have necessary repairs done ; can obtain supplies of every
kind, and in unlimited quantity ; and though their crews, when on
shore, are subject to the local jurisdiction, ships of war are considered
as forming part of the territory of the country to which they belong,
and, consequently, as exempt from local jurisdiction ; and, save as re-
OPINIONS OF SIR ALEXANDER COCKBLRN. 419
gards Stinitary or other port regulations, as protected by the flag under
which they sail from all interference on the part of the local authority.
Such is the state of things while the world is at peace. But if a war
arises between any two countries, a considerable modification, no doubt,
of the rights both of sovereigns who remain neutral and of those en-
gaged in the war, immediately arises.
While the neutral sovereign has the undoubted right of imposing any
restrictions or conditions he pleases, in respect of any of the foregoing
particulars, on the ships of w^ar of either belligerent, yet, if he exercises
that right, the equality which is essential to neutrality requires that he
shall impose them equally on both, and enforce them equally against
both. On the other hand, by the universal accord of nations, the bel-
ligerent is bound to respect the inviolability of neutral waters, and
therefore cannot attack his enemy within them, or make them the base
of hostile operations. He is subject also to restraint in three other im-
portant particulars : he cannot recruit his crew from the neutral i)ort;
he cannot take advantage of the opportunity afforded him of having
repairs done to augment in any respect the warlike force of his vessel ;
be cannot purchase on the neutral territory arms or munitions of war
for the use of it. These restrictions are imposed by the law of nations,
independently of Jiny regulations of the local sovereign. Besides this,
the belligerent is bound to conform to the regulations made by the lat-
ter with reference to the exercise of the liberty accorded to him ; but
subject to these conditions, a belligerent vessel has the right of asylum,
that is, of refuge from storm and hostile pursuit ; has liberty of entry
and of stay ; that of having the repairs done which are necessary to en-
able it to keep the sea in safety ; and that of obtaining whatever is
necessary for the purpose of navigation, as well as supplies for the sub-
sistence of the crew.
And, be it remembered — I fear it l\3,s not always been borne in mind —
the liberty thus afforded is not by the general law subjected to any limita-
tions as regards length of stay, quantity of supply, or condition as to
the future proceedings of the vessel.
The case of the United States seeks, indeed, to put further limits on
the liberty thus conceded to belligerent ships. It would L»^;„„,orir.n.y
prohibit *' successive supplies to the same vessel;" would »»>« tniud suie-.
limit repairs to be done to a belligerent vessel to such as are "absolutely
jiecessjiry to gain the nearest of its own ports ;" would make the per-
mission afforded to a vessel to take what it calls "an excessive supply
of coal" a failure in the performance of the duty of the neutral.
Such restrictions, though they maybe created by the will of the local
sovereign, have, however, no existence by inteinational law. Tbey are
unknown to it. No authority is adduced in support of them, nor can
any be found. No writer on international law, in speaking of the gene-
ral liberty of belligerent vessels to have repairs done or to obtain sup-
plies, speaks of any such restriction as existing independently of local
regulations. The authorities are conclusive to the contrary.
Two leading authors are express on the point. M. Ortolan Avrites
thus:
Lea rogles relatives i\ l'acc^H et an s^jour iuomeutan<5. des b^tiinents dans les ports
et dans les Hides etraugers resteut les luomes en temps de paix qn'eu temps de guerre.
M. Hautefeuille says:
L'asile maritime consiste a recevoir dans les rades ferm6es, mfime dans les ports, les
hsltiaients des belligerents, que leur entrde soit volontaire on udcessitd par le teui])ete,
^Diplomatie de la mer, vol. ii, p. 2d6.
420 ARBITRATION AT GENEVA.
l»ar le inanqne de vivres on par tonte autre cause, in^me par la ponrsnite de I'ennemi.
Lps vaisst^anx adniiR peuveut acheter les vivres qui leur soiit n^cessaires, r<Fparer les
avarics faites, soit par les accidents de nier, hoit par le combat, soigner leurs iiialadei<
ou lenrs bless(^s, j>mi6' soriir lihrement pour aUer Hirer de twurtmix combats.^
While restraints raay be, and often have been, imposed by neutral
sovereigns in respect of the entry of belligerent vessels into their ports
and waters, of the length of their stay, and of the supplies to be
afforded them, no one has till now ever gone the length of saying that
it forms any part of the obligations of the neutral to make such regu-
lations.
The greater number of the maritime states made none such on the
occasion of the civil war, except as regards the reception of privateers,
it being the apparent desire of all nations to' put down forever this
worst and most noxious form of maritime warfare. Some imposed u
restraint on ships of war bringing prizes into their ports, though mostly
this was confined to privateers. Spain, France, Brazil, and Great Britiiiu
adopted the rule contained in Her Majesty's instructions of the 3Ist
January, 18G2, of limiting the stay of belligerent vessels to twenty-four
hours, except in cases of necessity ; Brazil and Great Britain, but these
alone, that of limiting the supply of coal to the quantity suflScient to
take the ship to the nearest port of her own country.
The government of the Netherlands issued instructions to the Gov
ernorsof its West India colonies, limiting the staj- of belligerent vessels
of war to twice twenty-four hours, but afterward did away with such
restrictions on the occasion of a complaint made by the United States.
By article 4 of the present maritime regulations of the Netherlands
it is provided that^ —
The ships of war of the belligerent parties, provided they submit to the interuational
re«;ulation8 for their adinissiou into neutral ports, may remain for an unlimited time
in Dutch harbors and estuaries ; they may also provide themselve.s with an unlimitHi
quantity of coal. The nfoverument, however, reserves to itself the right, whenever il i"
thought necessary for the prevention of neutrality, to limit the duration of such stay
to twenty-four hours.
Italy had at the time in question no regulations on the subject. By
the present Italian Naval Code, (chap. 7,) while it is provided that
'Clothing shall be furnished to vessels of war. or to belligerent priva-
teers beyond articles of food and commodities, and the actual means of
repair necessary to the sustenance of their crews and the safety of their
navigation,'' it is further provided that "vessels of war or belHgerent
privateers wishing to fill up their stores of coal, cannot be furnished
with the same before twenty-four hours after their arrival f this regula-
tion being to prevent hostile vessels from leaving together.
Nothing is said as to the "navigation" being to the nearest port, and
"stores'' of coal are spoken of without limitation. It is evident that
this code contemplates no such restriction.
As, then, the general law neither imposes any limit on the stay of
a belligerent vessel in a neutral port, nor any restriction as to quantity
in respect of the articles of which it sanctions the supply, no questiou
can arise as to the stay of any confederate vessel in a British port, or
as to the quantity of coal supplied to it, prior to the Queen's Regula-
tions of January 31, 18G2.
After that date, the stay of belligerent vessels in Her Majesty's ports
having been limited, save under exceptional circumstances, to twenty-
four hours, and the supply of coal to so much as should be necessary to
take them to their nearest port, and a second supply within a period of
three months having been prohibited, it became the duty of Her Ma
1 Droits et devoirs des natious ueutres, vol. i, p. '.J47.
OPINIONS OF SIR ALEXANDER COCKBURN. 421
jest.v's oflBcers not to allow either of these limits to be exceeded ; and it
became the duty of belli^ereots, knowing that they were admitted into
British ports on the condition of complying with tliese regulations,
honestly and in good faith to conform to them. What if there should
have been at any time an instance of deviation from the strict tenor of
these regulations I The oflBcer offending would, of course, be responsi-
ble to his superior. Would the government be responsible to the other
beUigerent for any damage done by the vessel f
In the first place, it being the undoubted right of the local sovereign
to impose such conditions as he pleases on the entry of belligerent ves-
sels into his ports, but the regulations being directed to the sovereign's
own ofiicers to be carried out by them, and thus forming part of the
iDuuicipal law of the neutral, what right does a belligerent acquire to
insist that the regulations shall be enforced against his enemy ? Simply
that which arises from the duty, always incumbent on the neutral, as
being of the very essence of neutrality, of enforcing against the one
belligerent any rule which he enforces against the other. If both are
treated alike there can be no cause of complaint.
Again, to constitute an ofl'ense against the law of neutrality, there
nuist be, as to constitute an offense against any law, a malus animus^ a
mens rea — an intention to contravene the law — here, that of showing
undue favor to the one belligerent to the disadvantage of the other.
When, therefore, any departure from the letter of a regulation has
arisen from mistake, as where a governor believed that, because a ves-
sel bad suffered from vis major, as from storm and tempest, the case
formed an exception to the rule ; or where he considered that, because
he had furnished an extra supply to one belligerent, he might, under
similar circumstances, do the same for another ; or, where a mistake
might be made as to the precise quantity of coal necessary to take the
vessel to the nearest port, there would, as it seems to me, be no viola-
tion of neutrality for w hich, on rational grounds, a nation could be held
responsible.
In all such cases of alleged infraction of neutrality, the true question
should be, not whether a vessel has been permitted to stay in a port a
few liours more or less than the precise time prescribed, nor whether
a few tons, more or less, of coal have been allowed to be taken, but
whether there has been an honest intention to carry out the regulations
fairly and impartially. And, in judging of this, credit should be given
to persons in authority for honesty of purpose and a desire to discharge
their duty faithfully. This tribunal should take a larger and
more generous view of official conduct than it may have as-
sumed in the eyes of jealous belligerents, disappointed that exclusive
favor was not shown to themselves, and irritated because, notwithstand-
ing their loud demands that their opponents shouhl be treated as
pirates and outcasts, civilized nations, with Great Britain at their head,
took a more liberal and enlightened view of the relative position of the
l>arties.
Undoubtedly, if, after regulations had been made by a neutral sov-
ereign as to the accommodation and hos]>itality to be accorded to bel-
ligerent ships in the neutral ports, the regulations were enforced against
the one, while they were not enforced or were relaxed with regard to
the other, there would be a breach of neutrality, of which the less
lavored belligerent, if injury was thereby occasioned to him, would
have a right to complain. And, in truth, it is to this point, and this
point alone, and not to minute questions of hours of stay or tons of coal
supplied, that the inquiry with reference to what has been called the
hospitality afforded to belligerent vessels should be directed. Whether
422 ARBITRATION AT GENEVA.
Her Majesty's regulations were carried out by the local governors in
the different ports fairly and conscientiously, with an honest desire to
discharge their duty in obe<lience to those regulations, we shall see as
we advance; but so far as I am aware, there is no ground for saying
that the ships of the United States were not admitted into British i)ort8
as freely, or were not supplied with coal and other necessaries as liber-
ally, as the ships of the confederates. One or two complaints made by
querulous officials during the war will be noticed by and 'by. In sub-
stance they really come to nothing.
But a novel and, to my mind, most extraordinary proposition is now
put forward, namely, that if a belligerent ship is allowed to
i..»ker!uK.rt7£j take coal, and then to go on its business as a ship of war,
oiaa.uioperni.ou^ this is to make the port from which the coal is procured "a
base of naval operations," so as to come within the prohibition of the
second rule of the treaty of Washington.
We have here another instance of an attempt to force the words of the
treaty to a meaning which they were never — at least so far as one of the
contracting parties is concerned — intended to bear. It would be absnrd
to suppose that the British government, in assenting to the rule as laid
down, intended to admit that whenever a ship of war had taken in coal
at a British port and then gone to sea again as a war-vessel, a liability
for all the mischief done by her should ensue. Nor can I believe the
United States Government had any such arri^re pensee in framing the
rule ; as, if such had been the case, it is impossible to suppose that they
would not have distinctly informed the British government of the ex-
tended application they proposed to give to the rule.
The rule of international law, that a belligerent shall not make neutral
teiTitory the base of hostile operations, is founded on the principle that
the neutral territory is inviolable by the belligerent, and that it is the
duty of the neutral not to allow his territory to be used by one bellig
erent as a starting-point for operations against the other. This i.s
nowhere better explained, as regards ships of war, than by M. Ortolan,
in the following passage :
Le priiK'ipo g(^n<5ral de Vinviolabiliti? du territoire neutre exige aussi que Femploi Ac
CO. territoire rcste franc de toute meaure 'ou moyon de guerre, de I'lin des benigiSrants
centre Pautre. CVst une obligation pour cliacun des befiig^^rants de 8*en abstenir ; cVst
au»8i un devoir pour I'^tat neutre d^exigor cette abstention ; et c'est aussi pour lui un
devoir d'y veiller et d'en maintenir Fob-servation ii rencontre de qui que ce soit. Ainsi
il appartiont a Tautoritd qui commando dans Ics lieux neutres, ou des navires bcl-
lig<^rant8, soit de guerre, soit de commerce, ont 6.16 reyua, de prendre des mesures n^ce^-
saires pour que fiisile accord^ lie tourne pas en machination hostile contre Tun dei-
belligdrants; pour emp6clier sp(^cialenient qu'il ne devienue un lieu d'oii les bfttiments
de guerre ou les corsaires surveillont les navires enuemis pour les poursuivre et le>
fonibattre, et les capturcr loi*squMls serout parvenus au-delii de la mer territoriale. Tdo
de ces mesuros consiste a empecber la sortie simultauiSe des Davires apparteoant a des
puissances euuemies Tune de I'autre.'
It must be, I think, plain that the words " base of operations'^ must
be accepted in their ordinary and accustomed sense, as they have
hitherto been understood, both in common parlance and among authors
who have written on international law. Now, the term " base of war-
like operations " is a military term, and has a well-known sense. It
signifies a local position which serves as a point of departure and re-
turn in military operations, and with which a constant connection and
communication can be kept up, and which may be fallen back upon
whenever necessary. In naval warfare it would mean something
analogous — a port or water from which a fleet or a ship of war might
^ Diplomatic de la mer, vol. i, p. 291.
OPINIONS OF SIR ALEXANDER COCKBURN. 423
watch an enemy and sally forth to attack him, with the possibility of
foiling back upon the port or water in question, for fresh supplies, or
shelter, or a renewal of operations.
The meaning to be ascribed to the term in question as applicable to
a neutral port is to be gathered, as was so well pointed out by Sir Roun-
dell Palmer, from the instances given by the various writers on inter-
national 1j#bv. Thus we find the distinguished author before referred to
saying, in addition to the passage cited above :
Si (les forces navales beUigdrantos sont stationn6es dans line baie, dans un flenve ou
k I'embouchnre d^in lleuve, d'lin 6tat neiitre, ii dcsseia de protiter du cette Btation
jwiir exercer les droits de la guerre, les captures faites par ces forces navales sont ausni
ill<5gale8. Aiusi, si un navire bellig<^rant niouill^ ou croisaut dans les eaux neutres
capture, an moyen de ses embarcations, un b^itiment qui se trouve en dehors des
liiuites de ses eaux, ce b&timent u'est pas de bonne prise, bicn que Teniploi de la force
u'ait pas eu lieu dans ce cas, snr le territoire ueutre ; n^^anmoins il est le r6sultat de
Tusage de ce territoire ; et un tel nsaji^e pour des desseins hostiles nVst pas permis.'
" It is a violation of a neutral territory," says Chancellor Kent, " for a bellijjerent
ship to take her station within it iu order to carry on hostile expeditions from thence,
or to send her boats to capture vessels beyond it.'^
So Heffter :
Le neutre ne doit pas permettre que ses rades ou ses mere territoriales servent de
stations aux biltimentis des puissances bellig^rautes.
Le respect dft aux mers territoriales neutres ne se b^r^e p vs h I'abstention absolne
de tout acte d'hostilit-d ; il s'etend tSgalement aux faits qui prdpareut iuimdiliateintnit
ces actes. Ainsi nne flotte, un vaisseau de guerre, un armateur no saurait, sans coiii-
uiettreuue violation de territoire, s'etablir sur un point quelconque de cette uier, pour
<^pier le passage des btltiments, soit de guerre, soit marchands, de Tennemi, ou les navires
ueiifnes, encore quMl sorte de sa retraite pour aller les attaquer hors des limites de la
juridiction ueutre. II est de m6me d6fcudu de croiser dans les eaux rdserv^es pour
arriver au ni6me but.'
So Pistoye and Duverdy :
Les belligdrants ne doivent, ni par eux-mdmes ni par leurs corsaires, s'<?tablir dans
les mers neutres, pour surveiller Teunemi et lui courir sus. lis ne doivent uon plus
rester en croisi^re dans les mei's neutres, pour saisir Tennemi i\ sa sortie des ports
neutres.*
None of the instances thus given have the remotest reference to the
case of a vessel which, while cruising against an enemy's ships, puts
into a port, and, after obtaining necessary supplies, again pursues her
course.
If a military or naval oflBcer were asked whether af ship merely put-
ting into a port to coal, and then going to sea again, possibly on a par-
ticular warlike expedition, but without any idea of returning to or
communicating with such port, for the next three months, can be held
to be using it as " a base of operations," he would certainly laugh at the
simplicity of the question.
That the United States are putting this construction on the term for
tlie first time is plain from their own conduct throughout the civil war;
unless, indeed, they are prepared to acknowledge a perpetual violation
of British neutrality on their own part.
It appears from the return sent from the various British ports of the
amount of coal supplied to ships of war of the United States,* that these
vessels received over 5,000 tons during the civil war. If appears from
the claims made by the United States in respect of the employment of
their vessels of war in the pursuit and capture of confederate ships,*^
' Diplomatle de la mer, vol. i, p. 302.
- Kent's Commentaries ou International Law, by Professor Abdy, p. 326.
^ Droit international, p. 275.
'* PrlseH maritinies, vol. i, p. 108.
^ British Appendix, vol. v, pp. 223-234.
^ United States Appendix, vol. vii, p. 120.
424 ARBITRATION AT GENEVA.
that of the foregoing amount do lej^s than 4,000 tons was bad expressly
for the purpose of watching or pursuing particular ships.
The ca^e of the Vanclerbilt, when in pursuit of the Alabama, is a strik-
ing instance. After having coaled at Kio, she proceeded to St. Helena,
there took in 400 tons, (all she could get,) theu proceeded to Simoirs
Bay, and there took in 1,000 tons; she then went to the Mauritius, aud
the re coaled again. If the construction put by the United States Govern-
ment on the term " base of operations" is correct, in every one of these
instances there was a violation of neutrality, and an infraction of tbe
second and third rules. Is there to be one law for the United States
aud another for Great Britain f
But, in truth, such a construction is altogether unwarranted.
It may, perhaps, be as well to notice, as one instance occurs in tbis
inquiry of a vessel remaining in a British port to avoid cap-
u.«hiof..yiua,. ^^^^ ^^^ ^^ enemy, that the right of naval asylum is not sub-
ject, as is that afforded to military forces on land, to any condition of
disarming or dismantling the vessel. Azuni alone proposed to subject
a vessel seeking refuge from an enemy to a similar condition to tbat of
a military force on land, but he admitted that no precedent could be
found for such a thing, and all subsequent writers have repudiated such
a notion.
M. flautefeuille, for instance, says :
Le droit d'asile maritime difffere essentiellemeut de celui que lee neutres peuvent ex-
ercer en favour des belligi^rants sur le territoire continental. Dans lea guerres t«rrt'»-
ties, lorsqu'uuo armde, fnyant devant uou enucmi^ vient se rdfugier sur nn territoire
neutre, elle y est reyne, il est vrai ; ellc y trouvo toufi les secours d'humanit^. Mais
rnrm(5e est dissoute, les hommcs qui la composent sont d^sarm^s et 61oign<?sdu theatre
de la guerre ; en uu mot, on remplit les devoirs d'bumanit<$ ^ Pegard des individus,
inais on n'uccordepasl'asile h I'arnide pris comme corps. Le nentre qui, an lieu d'a^ir
aiiisi que je viens de le dire, accueillerait les troupes ennemies, leur fournirait des vivres,
leur dounerait le temps de sc remettre de leurs fatigues, de soigner leurs malades **r
leurs blessf'S, et leur permet trait ensuite de retourner sur le th^&tre des operations mili-
taires, ne serait pas consid^r^ comme neutre ; il manquerait h tons les devoirs de son
etat. L^asile maritime, an contraire, consiste h recevoir dans les rades fermdes, ni^'nie
dans les ports, les bsitiments des bellig(^rauts, que leur entr<5e soit voloutair© ou niScen-
sit^Iie par la tempete, par le manque de vivres ou par tout-e autre cause, m^me par la
poursuite de Tennemi. Les vaissoaux admis peuvent achcter les vivres qui leur soiit
n^^cessaires, rdparer les avaries faites, soit par les accidents de mer, soit par le combat,
soigner leurs malades ou leurs bless»%, puis soriir libranent poar aller lirrer de noutcaux
combats, lis ue sout pas, par cousequeut, soumis au d6sarmemeut comme les troupes de
terre.*
M. Calvo, in his recently published work on International Law,
says :
Tons les autenrs sont d'accord sur la difference radicale h 6.tsih\ir entre Fasile accorde
aux forces navalis et celui qui Test aiix troupes de terre. En effet, lorsqu^unearni^ en
fuite ou en ddroute frauchit les frontieres d'une nation neutre, celle-ci doit aussit^t la
di'^sarmer, rinterner et T^^Ioigner le plus possible du tli<5A.tre des bostilitds. Les m^med
uuisures ne sout (^videmment pas praticables ii Tdgard des navires quientrent dans les
ports, et qu'un usage universollement ^^tabli autorise, au contraire, h s'approvisiouuer,
a se r<5pareret h faire soigner leurs blessds, sauf ti remettre en mer des quails out i>ourvu
h leurs besoins.'^
M. Hautefeuille gives what seems to me to be the true ground of tlie
distinction, tialiani and Azuni had ascribed it to the perils to which
ships and men are exposed on the seas.
M. Hautefeuille says :
II y a done h cett© diffd^rence immense une autre cause qu^il est utile de rechercber.
Je crois qu'elle est tout entiere dans la qualitdrecounuedu Mtiment. II est une partie
du territoire de son pays ; pour tout ce qui concerne son gouvemement int^rieur, il est
cxclasivement plac6 sous la juridiction de son souverain. Or, il est Evident qn*ordon-
' Hautefeuille, Droits et devoirs de nations neutres, vol. i, p. 307.
^ Le droit international, vol. ii, p. 4'20.
OPINIONS OF SIR ALEXANDER COCKBURN. 425
nerle d^sarinemeatf c'est sMinmiscer dans le fi^onvernement inti^rieur clu vnisseau, cVst
fuiie un acte de juridiction sur 1© vaisHean ; le prince ueutre n^a pas le droit de le faire.
I] pent refuser Tasile ; 11 pent I'accorder seiilement sons certaines conditions,, avec des
n'strictioua. SMI veut reniplir lea devoirs d'biiniauit<5, arracher le batiment anx p^^rils
, i[\n piHivent le uienacer, i^le revolt daus ses ports, il lui accorde les secours n^^eessaires
pour le luettro cu ^tat de reprendre la nier. Tel est, b, mou avis, le senl motif de la
(liff<^reuce dout je viens de parler.*
It is plain, therefore, that M. Staeinpfli was in error when, in speaking
of the Snmter at Gibraltar, he assumed that her being allowed to re-
main in port, to avoid hostile capture, was a violation of neutrality.
It would be to carry the perversion of language too far to contend
that, to supply coals to a belligerent from a neutral port
' "^5 !^i_ J. J» f£ 1 J. A.' I. Supply of colli.
was a use ot the port for a "renewal or augmentation or
military supplies" within the meaning of the rule of the treaty. The
term can only have reference to munitions of war — things necessary for
actual battle, as powder, shot, shell, and the like. No question has ever
been raised — no one has ever entertained a doubt — as to the perfect le-
gality of supplying to a belligerent vessel whatever was necessary to it
for the purpose of navigation. Machinery and coal having taken, in a
great measure, the place of masts and sails, the same principle must of
course apply to them. It was upon this principle that the great mari-
time nations — France, Holland, Spain, Brazil — acted in allowing coal
to be supplied to confederate vessels ; it was on this principle that so
abundant a supply was afforded in British ports to vessels of the United
States.
In the result, then, it seems to me beyond all doubt that no question
can arise as to the stay of belligerent ships in British ports prior to the
issuing of the regulations of 31st of January, 1862, or as to the quantity
of coal supplied to them before that time, so long as equal accommoda-
tion was afforded to both ; and that, subsequently to that period, the
only question is, whether these regulations were honestly and fairly
acted upon toward both parties ? To that question I shall now proceed
to address myself, with reference, in the first instance, to the Florida.
Having left Mobile on the 10th of January, 1863, the Florida arrived
at Xassau on the 26th. It is complained in the Case of the
United States ^that "her entry into the harbor, though
made without permission, wsis condoned;" that the visit lasted thirty-
jsix hours instead of twenty-four ; " that the supplies exceeded largely
what was immediately necessary for the subsistence of the crew;" that
" by the permission of the authorities she took in coal and provisions to
last three months." " She entered the port," it is said, "'without any
restrictions, and the officers landed in the garrison-boat, escorted by the
fort adjutant, Lieutenant Williams, of the second West India regi-
ment." " The governor made a feint of finding fault with the way in
which she had entered, but ended by giving her all the hospitality which
her commander desired."
In an intemperate letter from Consul Whiting to Mr. Seward, of the
26th, he says :
Sir : I have the honor to inform you of the arrival at this port this morning of the
confederate steamer Florida, late the iiot-ed Oreto, in command of one Maffitt, once a
lieu eiiant in the United States Navy. This pirate ship entered this port without any
rf'strictious, with the secession ensign^ at the peak and the secession war-pcnnaut at
the main, and anchored abreast of Her Mi^esty's ship Barraconta, Maflitt and his ofii-
<!er8 landiug in the garrison-boat, escorted by the fort adjutant, Lieutenant Williams^
of the second West India regiment.
The pirate officers proceeded at once to the Royal Victoria Hotel, to breakfast with
the confederate agents here, and they were received with much enthusiasm by the se-
1 Droits et devoirs des nations neutres, vol. i, p. 309.
* Page 350.
426 ARBITRATION AT GENEVA.
cession syrapatbizers, and a display of secession bunting. Tbe pirate sbip, sofin after
anchoring, commenced coaling, by permission of the governor ; an evidence of the per-
fect neutrality which exists here, where the United States steamer Dacotah bat a few-
months since was only permitted to take on board twenty tons of coal from an Ameri-
can bark otf Hog Island, and then only on Captain McKinstry and myself plodding
ourselves, in writingy '' that within ten days after leaving this port she would nut bv
crnising within iive miles of any island of the Bahama government."
Pretty neutrality, this, I must say.
January 27, 1863. — The pirate ship is still at anchor, having exceedeil her time of
lying in a neutral port. Gangs worked all night taking in her coal, and «be is ordered
to sea this forenoon. By this time, however, my dispatches have most likely reached
some of our war-vessels, and I trust they may be able to capture this formidable
pirate.
At noon the pirate got under way and stood out of the harbor, bnt continued all
day coasting np and down the Hog Island shore, within two miles of the land. Tvrenty
of her men left here and others were shipped in their place. From one of tbe deserters
I gleaned the following information, viz :
^' The Oreto left Mobile January 15, under command of Maffitt ; touched at Havana,
where she lay twenty -four hours; thence sailed for Nassau, where she lay thirty-six
hours, and took on board coal. She has six 32-pounders, two 9-inch pivot-gnns, two
brass 12-pouuders, ample stores, ammunition, and one hundred and thirty meu.'^^
I do not see why it should be stated ia the case that the Florida re-
mained in the port of Nassau thirty-six hours, when Mr. Whitting's letter
states that she arrived on the morning of the tiCth and left at noou on
the 27th. In point of fact she remained twenty-six hours. It behooves
those who make accusations to use " due diligence" to secure accuracy
in their facts.
It is to be regretted that it should be asserted that this steamer was
allowed to take in coal for three months, when the other facts stated in
the case show this to have been impossible. It is difficult to suppovse
that the consul should not have been aware of the circumstances under
which Captain Maffitt, the commander of the Florida, had been brought
on shore in the garriaon-boat. It is to be regretted that his statement
on this subject should have been repeated in the case of the United States.
accompanied by the offensive remark that "the governor marfe a /et«^
of finding fault with the mode in which the vessel had entered, but ended
by giving her all the hospitality which her commander required," especially
after the full explanation afforded by Governor Bayley at the time, both
to Lord Lyons and to the secretary of state for the colonies, which was
in due course communicated to the Government at Washington. It is the
more to be regretted that these imputations should have been made, be-
cause it must have been known to those who make them th4t a ship of
war of the United States had shortly before entered the port of Nassau
without permission ; that her commander had, in like manner, been
brought on shore in the garrison-boat ; and that the entry had been, in
like manner, " condoned," and the ship allowed to remain in the harbor
for repairs. The conduct of a British governor being thus called in
question, I think it right to call attention to the correspondence, which
will speak for itself.
Mr. Whiting's letter having been brought to the notice of Lord Lyons,
and his lordship having applied to Governor Bayley for an explanation,
the latter, in a letter of the 11th of March, 18G3, replies a« follows:
GOVKRNMENT HOUSK,
Nassau, Bahamas, March 11 , 1863.
My Lord : I have the honor to acknowledge your lordship's dispatch inclosing *
complaint from the United States consul at this port to Mr. Seward, the Secretary of
State, respecting undue advantages alleged to have been given to the confedente
steamer Florida in this harbor.
^ United States Documents, vol. vi, p. 333.
OPINIONS OF SIR ALEXANDER COCKBURN. 427
In roply, I beg leave to state that no undue advantages were accorded to the Florida.
She arrived in our harbor, having steamed over the bar without a pilot, early in the
morning of the 20th of January. I was not aware of it till Sot 9 o'clock a. m. About
that hour Capt-ain Maffitt called (I think in company with the fort adjutant) to explain
that he was ignorant of ray proclamation requiring that permission should be formally
anked before any man-of-war belonging to either of the two belligerents could enter
the harbor. I did not see him ; but in a very short time I received a letter from him,
of which I transmit your lordship a copy, along with the copy of the memorandum
indorsed on it by myself before I sent it to the colonial secretary. The Florida re-
mained in harbor about twenty-six hours, during which time I neither spoke to nor
saw Captain Maffltt.
So far from any advantage having been accorded to the Florida which was not ac-
corded to United States vessels, she did not receive privileges equal to those which I
granted to the United States gun-boat Stars and Stripes. That vessel entered the har-
bor without permission (which she asked for after she had come in.) Her commander
then aske<l for an extension of the permission, which I also accorded ; and she re-
mained in harbor, if I remember rightly, three or four days for the alleged purpose of
nudergoing repairs.
I regret that the Secretary of State should have given credence to the misrepresent a-
tious of a person of such infirm judgment and excitable temperament as Mr. Whiting
has proved himself to be.*
I have, &c.,
C. J. BAYLEY.
Captain Maffitt, the commander of the Florida, having written to the
governor, saying that the vessel was in distress for want ot coal, and
asking leave to enter the harbor in order to obtain a supply, the follow-
ing memorandum was made by the governor :
I grant this request under the circumstances; thereby according to a confederate
steamer the same privileges which I have formerly granted to Federal steamers. But
the irregularity in delaying to make this request should be pointed out, and the pilot
called on to explain how he admitted the Florida without my permission.'-
Repeating these statements in a letter to the secretary of state for the
colonies, of May 2, Governor Bayley adds :
I have no distinct recollection of the special reasons which induced me to impose
the restrictions mentioned by the consul in the Dacotah's coaling ; I can only suppose
that I did this in conse<[uence of the pertinacity with which Federal vessels about
that time resorted to the harbor on pretense of coaliug, but really with the object of
watching the arrival and departure of English merchant-vessels, supposed to be
freighted with cargoes for the southern ports. Had not such prohibition been issued,
the harbor would have become a mere convenience foi Fe<leral men-of-war running in
and out to intercept British shipping. And that such conditions as I thought it my
duty to impose were tempered by a proper feeling of courtt^sy and humanity will, I
tliink, be made evident by the accompanying lettci*s from the American consul on the
subject of the Federal man-of-war the R. Cuyler, and the memoranda of my replies
indorsed upon them by myself.
On the whole I am satisfied that I have acted with perfect impartiality in all my
dealings with Federal and confederate men-of-war. But I am not surprised that my
tM»nduct should have been misrepresented by so hot-headed a partisan as the late Amer-
ican consul, Mr. Whiting, whose ingenuity in misconstruction is well illustrated by
bin reply to my letter of the 29th of September, of both of which papers I inclose
copieH, with the indors!ition> of the draught of my replies to his last communic^itiou.
I think that these inclosures will be sufficient to prove that, in my demeanor to the
Federal men-of-war, I have generally preserved an attitude of fairness and imparti-
ality ; and that if at any time I have appeared to assume an unfriendly or inhospita-
ble mien, the charge can be fully explained and defended by my desire to maintain the
security of a British possession, and the rights of British subjects.^
It is not worth while to set out the inclosures, with the exception of
the letter of Lieutenant Williams, the fort adjutant, which jh* nonda nt
is of importance, and is in these terms : ''"•'*"•
Nassau, New Pkovidence, April 30, 1863.
Sir : In answer to your letter of yesterday, requesting me to state, for the informa-
tion ol his excellency the governor, whether Captain Maffitt, of the Confederate States
1 Biitish Appendix, vol. i, p. 77.
2 Ibid., p. 78.
3 Ibid., p. 79.
428 ARBITRATION AT GENEVA.
8teamer Florida, came a^shore in the garrison-boat, I beg to observ^e that, in the middle
of last year, I received iustructioiis from his excellency, throngh the colonial s<»cre-
tary, that when I boarded any ship of war belonging to either belligerent, I was to
hand to the captain of such vessel a copy of the proclamation regarding neutrality,
and to point out the clause forbidding belligerent vessels to anchor in the port or roa4i-
stead of Nassau without having previously obtained the governor's permission, addiii;;
at the same time that, circumstances v'^rmi^ting, his excellency would always be luoHt
happy to extend the hospitality of the port to such as might require it.
The tirst vessel which I had occasion to visit after the receipt of the above instruc-
tions, was the Federal gun-boat Stars and Stripes. I pointed out to the captain the
requirements of the proclamation, but he said that, ^^ owing to certain injuries receivtfd
by his machinery, and the roughness of the weather, he must anchor at once, or his
ship would go on shore." I therefore suggested to him the propriety of coming ashore
with me, and proceeding to Government House to explain personally to his exc«*lleucy
the nei'essities of his position. He landed in the garrison-boat, and went with tne to
the governor.
A short time after this the Confederate States steamer Florida ran into the port at
diiybreak, and cast anchor before I was able to board her. I gave a copy of the priKda*
niation to Captain Mailitt, who stated his entire ignorance of any such restrictiouSy and
exi>ressed his regret for having unwittingly violated the regulations of the port, and
also aj»ked me what course he had better follow. I told him that he had better come
ashore in my boat, and go with me to the governor, explain matters, and obtaiu tlif
necessary permission to remain. He therefore, like the captain of the Stars and
Stripes, landed in the government boat, and proceeded with me to his excellency the
governor.
Trusting that his excellency will consider the above explanation sufficient for the
purpose for which he may require it, I have, &c.,
(Signed) S. W. WILLIAMS,
Lieutenant 2d Hest Indian Regiment, Fort Adjutant.^
The tribunal must judge for itself how far, after these explanations,
which were communicated to the United States Government, and the
fact that precisely the same circumstances had previously occurred \^'itb
a Federal vessel— unless, indeed, the word of a British governor or of a
British officer is to be discredited or set aside by an offensive sneer- —
the color attempted to be given to this transaction in the case of the
United States is just or ri^h*}. I pass on to what is of greater relevauoy
to the present inquiry, namely, the quantity of coal taken by the Floritfa
on this occasion.
Lt is stated in the American Case^ that the Florida at the time in
question "received a three months' supply." A moment's reflection
would have sufficed to satisfy those who make this rash assertion that,
upon their own data, it must necessarily be incorrect. The only evi-
dence adduced in support of it is a loose statement from tlie Liverpool
Journal of Commerce of the 27th February, 18(33, in w^hich, after say-
ing that tlie Florida had arrived at Nassau on the 30th January, (instead
of the 20th,) it is said, by some oue writing on this side of the Atlautic,
that she left on the evening of the 31st (instead of the 27th) "fully sup-
plied," it is not said with what, "for a three months' cruise."^ To which
must be added a passage from an anonymous journal afterwards foaud
on board the Florida, in which it is said, under the date of January
2(>, " We took on board coal and provisions to last us several loonths-" *
But when we come to the only evidence worthy of a moment's consider-
ation, namely, the deposition furnished to Mr. Whiting by John Dem-
eritt, who'assisted to put the coal on board, the quantity is reduced to
180 tons. "I suppose," he says, "she had on board over 180 tons that
we put there; she did not have less than that quantity."* Yet even
this must have been sin exaggeration. According to the report of the
1 British Appendix, vol, i, pp. 79, &).
« Pages 351, 352.
' tTuited States Dociunents, vol. vi, p. 334.
* Ihid., p. 335.
6 Ihid., p. 336.
OPINIONS OF SIR ALEXANDER COCKBURN. 429
J'ritish oflBcers, who afterwards surveyed the Florida at Bermuda in
June, 18G4, and which will be set out hereafter, her capacity for carry-
ing: coal was limited to 130 tons. Demeritt, it is true, says, " we placed
some on deck, and in every place that would hold it ; ^ Uut a vessel of
war would not be likely to incumber her decks with very much coal ;
nor in such a vessel would there be many places in which coal could bo
stowed, except those expressly appro])riated to the purpose. Kear-
Adfiiiral Wilkes, writing to Governor Walker at Barbados on the 6th
of March following, says that the Florida had ''obtained a full supply
. (1(50 tons) at Nassau;"' but gives no other authority than the prtblic
prints. But even if Demeritt's statement as to the quantity having
boen 180 tons could be taken as true, it would fail to bear out the asser-
tion of a three months' supply. For it is stated in the United States
rase^ that the Florida "generally sailed under canvas, and that, when
using steam in the pursuit and capture of vessels, her consumption of
roal, as shown by her log-book, did not average 4 tons a day." Now, at
the rate of 4 tons a day, a supply for three months, or ninety days, would
have amounted to 360 tons, i. e., jAst double the amount which, accord-
ing to Demeritt's statement, she actually took in.
But the best proof of the incorre(itness of the assertion is to be found
in what follows in the American Case :^
Tho Florida left the port of Nassau on the afternoon of the 27th of January, 1863.
By the miildle of the following month her coal v>a8 getting low. On the 'iOth day of
Fehniary. Admiral Wilkes, in command of the United States squadron in the West
Indies, wrote to his Government thus: "The fact of the Florida having but a few
days' coal makes me anxious to have our vessels off Martinique, which is the onl^'
i>land at which they can hope to get any coal or 8uj»plies, the English islands being
• lit off, under the rules of Her Jlajesty's government, for some sixty days yet, which
precludes the possibility, unless by chicanery or fraud, of the hope of any coal or com-
fort there/' Admiral Wilkes's hopes were destined to diBappointment. On the 24th of
I'Vhruary, two days before the date of his dis])atch, the Florida had been in the harbor
of liarbailos, and had taken on board about lUO tons of coal in violation ojf the in-
structions of January 31, 1862.
llow, if the Florida took with her from Nassau a provision of coal
sutiicient for three months, or even 180 tons, as stated by Demeritt, her
coal could have been getting low in a fortnight's time, even though she
had been obliged to consume a greater quantity than usual, owing to
bad weather — or how far, having taken in such a quantity, she could
by the 24th of February have been able to take in 100 tons more — her
capacity being limited to 130 tons — it is for those who nuike these ap-
])arently inconsistent statements to explain. For my part, I must de-
cline to give credit to them.
We may then, I think, safely assume that the Florida took away with
lier from Nassau little more coal, if any, than what her capacity enabled
her ordinarily to carry. At the. same time, it must be admitted that,
reference being had to the regulations of the 31st of January, this
quantity was in excess of what wouUl have sufficed to take her to the
nearest port of the Southern States. But up to this time, there being,
owing to the blockade of the southern ports, no port of their own
country to which the confederate cruisers could resort, and these ves-
sels being consequently compelled to remain at sea, the colonial gov-
ernors appear to have relaxed somewhat of the rigor of the rule ; a line
oi conduct, however, which was soon after changed by reason of what
occurred on the occasion of the visit of this same vessel to liarbados in
tiie ensuing month, to the facts of which I am about to refer.
^ British Appendix, vol. i, p. 93.
3 Page :i52.
3 Page 354.
430 ARBITRATION AT GENEVA.
The Florida arrived at Barbados on the 24th of February. Her
commander stated'to the governor that, unless he was al-
At Biir« OK lowed to have some lumber to repair damages which he had
suffered in a recent gale of wind to the northward, and some coal, as
every bit he had had before had been exhausted in the same bad weather,
he could not go to sea, and should be obliged to land the men and strip
the ship. He received permission to ship 90 tons of coal. Xo com-
plaint is made as to the quantity thus allowed; but it is alleged that a
supply of coal having been granted within a month previous, the fur-
ther allowance thus accorded was in contravention of the regulations
of January 31, 18G2. And this, no doubt, strictly speaking, is true ;
and it is admitted by Governor Walker that, though he had not re-
ceived official information that the Florida had received the supply* at
Nassau, yet the fact had transpired £^nd was not unknown to him. Hut
it appears that the view he took was that the rule laid down was not
applicable to a case of distress, and the case was dealt with by him as
the earlier case of the Federal ship San Jacinto had been ; both vessels
having been, to use Governor Walker's own expression, " dealt with
specially as being in distress," and therefore, " without reference to the
circumstance of having been in British ports within the previous three
months."*
I trust we are not called ui)on to doubt the word of Governor Walker
that, in granting liberty to the Florida to take in a fresh supply of coal,
he believed himself to be following a precedent set by himself iu the
case of the San Jacinto. It has, however, since been discovered, though
only as lately as last year, by reference to the papers of the Xavy I>e-
partment of the United States, that it was a mistake to suppose that
the San Jacinto when, on the 13th of November, 18G2, (the occasion to
which Sir James Walker had referred,) she took in a supply of 75 tons
of coal at Barbados, had had a supply from a British port within three
months 'before.* That the governor believed she had done so must be
taken as undoubted. He referred to the fact at the time, in his conver-
sation with Admiral Wilkes, as the precedent which he had followe<l
with reference to the Florida. How the mistake arose admits of easy
Ti.. noruia .t solutiou. It appcars from a letter of Mr. Robeson to >Ir.
B.rbadcKP. Secretary Fish, that on the 1st of November, 186!i, the San
Jacinto " came to anchor in Grassy Bay, olf Bermuda, and there re-
mained till the morning of the 4th, having been in port sixty-three hours
twenty-seven minutes." It appears from return of the United States
men-of war that visited Bermuda during the civil war (set out at page
226 of volume V of the Appendix to the British Case,) that Ihe Sau
Jacinto and another United States ship of war, the Mohican, entered
Grassy Bay together on the 1st November, and that the latter was
allowed to repair damages, and, as not being on a belligerent errand, to
take in 100 tons of coal.^ The fact of the two vessels having put into
Bermuda together, and of the one having coaled during their stay, a
fact which must have come to the governor's knowledge, would easily
account for any confusion which might have arisen as to which of them
it was that had coaled on that occasion.
The coaling of the Florida at Barbados gave rise to a more rigorous
application of the rules contained in the regulations of January, 1862.
The American admiral, Wilkes, who, as we know from his letter of
the 26th of February, had been lying in wait for the Florida off Marti-
' British Appeudix, vol. i, p. 9*2.
3 United States Docuiuont-», vol. vi, p. 345.
3 British Api>endix, vol. v, p. 2C6.
OPINIONS OF SIR ALEXANDER COCKBURN. 431
iiique, no sooner heard of her having pat into and coaled at Barbados,
than he sought a personal explanation from Governor Walker. The
governor explained the principle on which he had acted, and referred to
the coaling of the San Jacinto as a precedent directly in point, lie
ftiiied, however to appease the anger of the admiral; who, having re-
turned to his ship, axldressed to the governor an offensive letter of re-
monstrance, or rather of reproach, with a demand of explanation, a pro-
ceeding wholly unprecedented and irregular, it being altogether beyond
the authority of an officer of the United States Navy to address a letter
of remonstrance to the Queen's representative in the person of the
governor of one of her colonies, in respect of acts done in the execution
of his duty, such representative being responsible to Her Majesty alone,
and any alleged misconduct on his part being matter for discussion be-
tween the two governments.
Governor Walker, of course, declinec^ to furnish any explanation in
answer to such a demand, and transmitted Admiral Wilkes's letter to the
Duke of Newcastle, then secretary of state for the colonies, with a sim-
ple statement of the facts.
Both these letters were submitted to the law-officers of the Crown, to
report whether there had been any breach of Her Majesty's regulations.
The law-officers reported as follows:
We are of opinion that his excellency the governor of the Windward Islands does
not appeair to have heen guilty of showing any undue partiality to the Oreto, or to
have committed any literal breach of Her Majesty's regulations. We would take the
hberty of oiiserving further, that his excellency owe^ no acconnt to Admiral Wilkes <if
his conduct in the matter of his discliarge of liis duties toward Her Miyesty ; and that
the very offensive tone and language of that officer's letter ought to aiiprise his excel -
huicy of the inexpediency of long personal interviews and explanations with him. It
in manifest that upon this, as upon other occitsions, these intervii'ws and explanations
are made the pretext for writing subseciuent letters of this description, intended to be
u.sed hereafter very disingenuously, as proof of charges made at the time of the favor
shown by Her Majesty's officers to the Confederate States.
We feel ourselves called upon, while giving to Governor Walker full credit for honest
and impartial conduct, to add that, in our opinion, the letter and spirit of Her Majesty's
H'gnlatious (quoted in Rear- Admiral Wilkes's dispatch of the Gth March, IHtV.i) have
not been adhered to with sufficient strictness in either of the cases mentioned, that of
the San Jacinto or that of the Oreto. The limits of the supply of coal, in particular,
prescribed by that regulation, ought to be observed, both as to the quantity of coal to
In* supplied in the first in«tance, and as to the interval <»f time which, in the absence
of *• special permission," (a permission mit contemplated except under "sj)ecial" cir-
cnmstances of a kind different, in our opinion, from those ^vhich occurred in the two
cases in question,) ought to elapse between two successive supplies of coal from British
ports.
(Signed) WM. ATHERTON.
KOUNDELL PALMER.
ROBERT PHILLIMORE.^
It will be observed that this opinion bears the signature of Sir Robert
Phillimore, who, as we know, is held up to us, and deservedly so, in the
argument of the United States for our f^uidance, as a great authority.
From this time forward to the end of the war Sir Robert IMiillimore tilled
the high office of Queen's advocate, and must share the respoiKsibility
of many things which are made matter of complaint on the part of the
United States.
In the mean time Mr. Secretary Seward having transmitted to Lord
L3*on8 Admiral Wilkes's letter to (Jovernor Walker, Lord Lyons, in
forwarding it to Earl Russell, accompanied ft with the following very
p«»rtinent and sound advice :
I have always been myself of opinion, that the course best calcnlatod to avoid un-
pleasant discussions with this (iovernment, is to adhere as closely as possible to the
^ British Appendix, Ibid., vol. i, p. 96.
432 ARBITRATION AT GENEVA.
regiilatious. A departure from them, even in favor of the United States crni^ers, is
likely (as iiidt'ed happened at Bi'rmuda) to lead to mi^nnderstandings respectinjj th-
nature and extent of the coucession intended, and to demands for similar concessions
on other occasions ; while the displeasure occasioned here by any favor granted to a
confederate ship is in no degree diminished by proof that a similar favor had been \trc-
vionsly granted to a United States ship.^
The colonial secretary appears to have deemed the renort of the law
officers too general and too deficient in precision to afford a siitficient
guide to the governors of colonies in the great difficuKy of their posi
tion between the belligerent parties — a difficulty which will be the
better appreciated from his grace's observations and the questions put
to the law-officers to enable him to give instructions to the governors
for their future guidance. His undersecretary, Mr. Elliot, writes:
With regard to the law-officers' opinion that the governor did not adhere to Hpf
Majesty's n-gnlations with sufficient strictness, either in the case of the Oreto or in tb.it
of the 8an Jacinto, his grace observes that the law-officers have not afforded any such
specitication of the g»)vernor's errors as might be a guide to him in future. They say
that the limits of the supply of coal prescrilxnl by the regulation should be adhered to.
But they do not say on what grounds they come to the conclusion that it has been ex-
ceeded. The supply is to be limited to such as will enable the ship to reach the nearessi
of its own ports, or any nearer destination. The supply to the Oreto w:i8 90 t^n*.
The papers do not show (though possibly the law-offii-.ers may be aware from otbcr
sources) what wjts th«5 supply to the San .J[;icinto. The question, therefore, ari'«in';
upon these papers is, whether 90 tons is more than wonld be required by such a vc^nel
as the Oreto to reach the nearest coulWlerate port, or any nearer destination.
It would be very desirable to explain to Governor Walker for what destinatimi
(supposing all confederate pcu'ts to bo under blockade) the Oreto or any other coufeil-
erate ship under similar circumstanc(»H should be allowed to take in coal.
On the next point of alleged insutlicient strictness, his grace is disposed, to a certain
extent, to agree with the law-officers. The regulation requires tluit ^' no coal shall i»e
again supplied to any such shi4) of war, or privateer, in the same or any other pi»rr.
r«)adst<5ad, or waters, subject to the territorial jurisdiction of Her Majesty, witboiii
special permission, until after the expiration of threo mouths from the time when siuli
coal may have been last snpplied to her within British waters, as aforesaid.'*
The Oreto appears to have coaled at Nassau within three months, and, indeed, within
thirty days of her arrival at Barbados; and though the American consul's veheuit-nt
remonstrance of the 24th February against her being allowed to coal di*! not touch thf
point, and the governor had no official information of the fact, he docs not deny that
the fact had transi>ired and was known to him ; but states that the supplj' of coal wu*
allowed on the ground of the shij) having suffered at sea in a gale of wind, had bf^fn
ol»liged to exhaust her coal, the whole of which was gone; so that, if supplies wrre
refused, the captain said he would l)e obliged to laud his men, and strip the ship. Th»'
statement of thci captain of the San Jacinto was of a like tenor. The first questiui
seems to be, whether the go^'crnor ought to have instiliited an inquiry into the truth
of the statements made to him by the captains of the Oreto and San Jacinto. It
appears to his grace that he ought. It is, no doubt, very desirable to avoid restiu;:
decisions, of which the impartiality is sure to be questioned, upon the results of
iniiuiries in which jnore or less doubtful and coutlicting testimony has to be weighed.
But, in the case of an allegation that a vessel is destitute of coal, all that seems neces-
sary is to send an officer on board to see whether there is coal there or not. Perhaps, if
the governor were to refuse to take the word of an American admiral for such a fact, an«l
were to send .an officer on board to verify it, the admiral would regard the proceediiu
as offensive; but, nevertheless, his grace thinks that he should be retiuired U} subiuit
to it before he should be allowed to coal out of time, unless he be prepared to couseiit
to the word t>f a confederate officer being taken in like manner without inquiry.
But, snpposinjr tlu» governor to have erred in these cases, it is not explained in the
report of tin* law-officers whether it is of this, or of what other errors, he has been
guilty, so as to help him to avoid a repetition of error. For example, supposing it li.ul
been the fact duly ascertaineil, that the Oreto or San Jacinto had suffered severt?1y ni
a gale of wind, had exhausted all her coal, and was disabled from proceeding to so a
unless supplied, was the goveruor to have forbidden her to coal on the ground tba:
Hhe had co'ile<l at some British 5>ort within thirty days f
On tlu^ other hand, did his only error consist in his having allowed her to coal witb-
<Hit verifying the fact of her distress ?
Again, assuming the fact to be that there is, or may be hereafter, no confederate pi»rt
unblockaded, and that the real destination of a confederate vessel asking for supplies
^ British Appendix, vol. i, p. 97.
OPINIONS OF SIR ALEXANDER COCKBUKN. 433
♦
18 a cruising clestiiiation, 80 that She is not bound for any particular port, iH this to
deprive her of the supplies which wouhl bo granted to a Federal cruiser in all respects
Himilarly circumstanced) except that in Uer case a port can be designated which is in
the possovssion of her government, by the distance of which fi*om the British colony a
standard is afforded for measuring the quantity of coal to be supplied T
His grace would be glad to be enabled to send out in structions to Governor Walker,
founded upon the opinions of the law-oftieers, so far as they shall appear to have fully
and correctly understood the course taken by the governor, together with any further
instructions which would serve for the governor's guidance on the points
adverted to, and on the nature of the cases (if not those alleged by the xJ^Tu/'""*'" "*
Oreto and San Jacininto) which "special i>ermi8sion " is to be given to
take in coals.
His grace desires uie to observe that Governor Walker, by adopting the course of send-
ing immediate notice to all the other governors in the West Indies of a belligerent ves-
sel having obtained coals and supplies at Barbados, appears to have taken a very use-
ful precaution against the violation of the regulations, and that ii would apparently
he expedient to instruct the other governors to do likewise.^
To these questions the law-officers answered :
That with respect to the observance of Her Majesty's regulations, in answer to the
questions of the Duke of Newcastle, it is most desirable that the terms of Her Majesty's
proclamation should be strictly adhered to ; that coal ought not to be supplied^to
either belligerent, except in such quantity as may be necessary to " carry such vessel
to the nearest port of her own country, or to some nearer destination ;" and that by
these latter words it is not intended to include a mere cruising destination, but some
definite port or place. That, therefore, coal granted at any of Her Majesty's ports,
and consumed in cruising, ought not to be replenished under the terms of the procla-
mation ; but that a vessel whoso coal has, owing to real necessities arising from
stress of weather, been prematurely exhausted, before she could (if time and weather
wtTe the only obstacles) reach her port of destination, ought not to be forbidden by
the governor to coal, although within the time specified iu the regulations.
It would appear to us that the suggestion of sending an oflScer on board to verify
in each ease the necessity of coaling, would be likely to give great offense to belliger-
eut men-of-war ; but of course it would bo competent to Her Majesty's government,
if they thought fit, to make Hurh a verification tlie condition of liberty to coal in Her
Majesty's ports.
(Signed) WM. ATHERTON.
ROUNDELL PALMER.
ROBERT PHILLIMORE.-
Hereupon the following disputch of the IGth July, 1863, was addressed
to Governor Walker :
Downing Street, July 16, 18G:J.
Sir: I have received and Iiad iHider my consideration yodr dispatch of the 7th
March, giving an account of certain commuuications which have pjissed between your-
self and Rear-Admiral Wilkes, of the United States Navy.
You were quite right in refusing to enter into correspondence with that officer upon
the matter adverted to in his dispatch of the 5th Marcn. On this and other occasions
it has become evident that interviews and explanations such as you accorded to Rear-
Admiral Wilkes were made the pretext for placing on record charges more or less
direct against officers of Her Majesty. And I think that, as the governor of one of Her
Majesty's colonies owes no explanation of his conduct to an officer of the United
States Navy, it will be prudent hereafter to avoid such explanations as far as the rules of
courtesy will allow. It is the wish of Her Mfgesty's government that matters of com-
plaint should in general be discussed between the two governments concerned rather
than between any subordinate officers.
With regard to the issue of coal to the war-vesdels of the 1>el]igcrents, yon have, I
think, allowed yourself too much liberty in giving the ^' special permission '' to take
in fuel contemplated in Her Majesty's proclamation. Coal, in the opinion of Her
Majesty's government, ought not to be supplied to a vessel of war of either belligerent
except in such quantity as may be necessary to carry such vessel to the nearest port
of her own country, (or, of course, any nearer port,) and this, I will add, without refer-
ence to the question whether the ports of that country are or are not under blockade.
In case of such blockade it will rest with the officer in command to seek some more
convenient destination. If, within the period prescribed by the proclamation, a vessel
thus famished with coal in one of Her Mcgesty's possessions should apply for a second
28 B
' British Appendix, vol. i, p. 98.
2 Ibid., p. 100.
434 ARBITRATIOX AT GENEVA.
supply in the same or another colony, the application may he fi^anted, if it is made to
appear that, owing to real necessities arising from stress of weather, the coal originally
given has heen prematurely exhausted before it was possible that the vessel could, un-
der existing circumstances, have reached the destination for which she coaled.
Hut if it should be the case that the vessel has not, since taking in coal, been hona
fide occupied in seeking her alleged destination, but has consumed her fuel in cruising,
the coal should not bo replenished under the terms of the proclamation. Such a
case is not one to which the '* special permission" referred to in that proclamation was
intended to apply.
Her Majesty's government are of opinion that the regulations of the proclamation
thus interpreted should bo strictly adhered to, without any arbitrary concession to
either belligerent. It is by such a course that misunderstandings and complaint^s of
partiality will be most certainly avoided. An unauthorized coucessioH to one belliger-
ent, it may be safely assumed, will not be accepted by those to whom it is made as a
justitication of a similar concession in an opposite direction.
I approve of your having communicated to the oificera administering the govern-
ment of the other West Indian Islands the fact that certain Federal and confederate
vessels of war had called at Barbados.
I shall instruct the governors of the other islands to follow the same course, com-
municating in all cases the name of tlie vessel, its alleged destination, and the date of
receiving the coal, and the quantity' allowed to be placed on board.
I have, il'C,
NEWCASTLE.'
The foregoing papers are certainly deserving of attentive considera-
tion, as establishing beyond controversy that the British government
were desirous of carrying out, in their fullest extent, the Queen's regu-
lations for the maintenance of neutrality, and, what is more, that they
were prepared to do so, though an adherence to the letter of these reg-
ulations would have the effect of placing one of the belligerents ia a
position of great disadvantage relatively to the other. It was obvious
that the rule that, unless the whole of the last supply of coal obtained
in a British port had been consumed in seeking the nearest port of the
belligerent, not even distress of weather should form a ground for
allowing a further supply within the three months, was one which ex-
posed to very great difficulties those whose own ports were closed, and
who, having few other ports to resort to, were thus compelled to keep
the sea at the same time that their means of doing so were seriously
diminished, while it was of very little importance to the other belliger-
ent, who, having his ports open, could always have recourse to them
for supplies if other resources failed.
Yet, when Sir James Walker, recollecting what had happened on the
former occasion, and solicitous to carry out the instructions he had
since received, in all their stringency, on the application of Captain
Boggs, in April, 18G5, to remain a few days at Barbados for the purpose
of overhauling the piston and feeding-pump of the engine of his ship,
the Connecticut, replied that it would be necessary, in order that he
should sanction a stay beyond the prescribed time of twenty-four hom^s,
that Captain Boggs should give a definite assurance of his ioability to
proceed to sea at the expiration of that time, and as to the period
within which it woifld be possible to execute the necessarj^ repairs-
matters as to which the Florida at Bermuda had to submit to a survey
by the naval authorities — Captain Boggs allowed his temper to get the
better of him; says that "an American manof-war can always go to
sea in some manner" — which sober-minded people may X)erhap8 think
a somewhat idle boast — and that he shall do so, " though with
risk to his vessel and machinery'' — which, as it involved danger
both to his ship and crew, may be thought a questionable view of his
duty; "regrets that the national hospitality of remaining at anchor
for the purpose named in his letter is refused," which was the reverse*
J British Appendix, vol. i. p. 101.
OPINIONS OF SIR ALEXANDER COCKBIJRN. 435
of the fact; and, evidently with considerable temper, informs tbe gov-
ernor that lie shjiU depart from the port to-morrow at 10 a. m.^
It is a pity that this outbreak of temper on the part of Caytain Boggs
should have been exposed by his own countrymen, as thougb it had
been an example of heroism, or that the requisition of Governor Walker,
induced by the stringent instructions issued by the British government
on the occasion of the complaints of the United States relatively to the
Florida, should have been distorted into anything more than a resolu-
tion to carry out those instructions efficiently and impartially toward
hoth belligerents.
I return to the Florida. Her next visit to a British port was at Ber-
muda.
From a dispatch of Governor Ord to the Duke of Newcastle it ap-
pears that the Florida was oli' the port of 8t. George's
on the evening of the 15th of July, and on the following
morning received the necessary pei^mission to enter the port:
Having sent to Captain Mafiitt a copy of the printed circular-letter I Iiave had
drawn up, en)bodying the instructions of lier Majesty respecting the treatment of
Federal and confederate vessels of war, he called on me on the day of his arrival, and
stated that he had been at sea seventy days, with the exception of two visits to Ha-
vana and Barbados, each of which occupied less than twenty-four hours, and a visit of
siiorter duration to a port in the Brazils ; that he was lust from the immediate neigh-
Imrhood of New York, within sixty miles of which he hud been harassing the United
States commerce ; that he was in want of repairs to the hull and machinery of his
ship, and a small supply of coal ; that he feared he should experience difficulty in ob-
taining the latter, as he was informed that there was no steam-coal whatever in the
colony, except in the stores at the dock-yanl; and that he trusted, under the circum-
stances, he would be permitted to receive from this source as much as would serve to
carry him to a port of his own country ; thalf he would then use every exertion to com-
plete his refitment, and would leave the colony forthwith.
I told Captain Maffitt that his application for coal from admiralty stores must be
made to the senior naval officer, but I assured him at the same time that it would
not be complied with, and I granted him permission to remain so long as might be
necessary to fit his shix) for sea, and to procure from private sources the coal actually
required.*
All supply of coal from the dock -yard was refused. Thereupon Mr.
Walker, a merchant of the colony, applies on behalf of Cap- jh* p,„rij, ,t
tain Maffitt to the governor : »*''^"""*
As the Florida roust of necessity be detained at this port, as a vessel in distress, un-
til the arrival of coals which are daily expected, Captain Maffitt begs me to inquire of
your excellency if the privilege will be accorded to him of proceeding to the dock-yard
for the purpose of having effected some repairs to machinery and hull of ship, which
are. of essential importance, and which cannot be effected in the port of St.
George's.*
The answer of the governor was that the application could not be
granted, to which he adds:
In n]akin|i^ this communication I have to express a hope that Captain Maffitt may yet
find it in his power to obtain for his vessel such supplies of coal, and such necessary
repairs as will enable her to proceed without delay to her destination, but I must at
the same time point out that Her Majesty's instructions (with a copy of which Captain
Maffitt was supplied on the 16th instant) are very stringent as to the limitation of the
stay in British waters of vessels of war of the United States or Confederate States, and
that it is necessary that whatever may be required to enable the Florida to take her
departare from these islands should be provided in the shortest possible period. If,
however, Captain Msiffitt should find it impossible to procure at the present time what-
ever may be requisite for this purpose, I must request that he will at once proceed
with tbe Florida to Grassy Bay, there to remain until his departure from the colony
is rendered practicable.'*
^ United States Documents, vol. vi, p. 17d.
'British Appendix, vol. i, p. 108.
3 Ibid., p. 109.
^Ibid., p. 110.
43G AKIUTRATION At GENKVA.
Mr. Walker wrote again, suggesting that tliere was a large quantity
of coal lying in the commissariat department, ami applying, on behalf
of Captaii>Maffitt, in his great emergen<'y, for a sufficient qnantity to
carry his vessel to some coaling depot, otfering to pay for them, or to
return them in kind within a week or two. This again was refused.
On the 22d of July the governor writes to Mr. Walker, requesting him
" to ascertain, for his satisfaction, when the^necessary repairs and coal-
ing of the Florida will be completed, so as to enable her to proceed to
sea." In answer, IVIr. Walker says he is requested by Captain Maffitt to
inform his excellency that he is using every effoit to proceed to sea with
as little delay as possible.
" Captain Maflitt," he Mays, " is fully aware of the Htrin^ent character of Her Majesty's
iDstructions with regard to the stay in British waters of nieu-oi>war of the United
States and of the Confederate States ; and begs me to aasnre yonr excellency that hw
detention has been occasioned not by any disposition to contravene Her Majesty's in-
stnictiQns on tho subject, but from the great deficiency of labor at this port-, and from
causes to which the attention of your excellency has already been directed.
''The necessary repairs to Captain Maffitt's ship are now nearly completed, and he
will commence taking in his coals at 12 a. m. to-day. As it is probable that it will be
impossible to finish coaling until to-morrow, (Friday,) Captain Maffitt wonld l>ebappy
to receive the permission of your excellency to remain in the port of St. George'*
until Saturday morning." ^
The governor answers that —
Although the instructions of Her Majesty respecting the limitation of the stay in
British waters of vessels of war of the Confederate and United States are very strin-
gent, yet, as I have reiison to believe that circumstances beyond Captain Maffitt's control
have obstructed him in procuring the supply of coal and repairs to his vessel, necessary
to enable him to proceed to sea, I think J am justified in complying with bis request;
and I accordingly authorize the Florida remaining in these waters until the moniiog
of Saturday, the 25th instant, but no longer.^
A cargo of coal had, in the mean time, arrived in a vessel called the
Ilarriet Pinckney, out of which Captain Maftitt was enabled to obtain a
supply. It is stated in the United States Case and Argument* that this
vessel was one of the "insurgent transports;" from which it is sought
to be inferred that the cargo of coal brought out in her was intended ex-
pressly for the Florida; and upon this a charge is founded of a violation
of neutrality in a breach of the rule that neither belligerent was to be
permitted to establish depots of coal on British territor3\ To prove that
the Harriet Pinckney was an '^ insurgent transport," a letter from Mr.
Dudley to Mr. Seward, of January 2, 1863,^ is referred to ; but, on tam-
ing to that letter, it will be found that Mr. Dudley is not speaking of
or referring to " insurgent transports" at all, but to British vessels
employed in running the blockade with arms and contraband of war.
The word " transport," which, in the argument, is printed between in-
verted commas, as if taken from the letter, does not occur in it at all.
The vessel was, .to all appearance, an ordinary trading-vessel — one of
those engaged in the profitable employment of running the blockade.
In this business she visited St. George's five times between January,
1863, and February, 1864/ A letter from a Mr. Walker, is, indeed,
printed in the seventh volume of the United States DocamentV in
which he says that he had employed the Harriet Pinckney in the begin-
ning of July to bring a cargo of coal from Halifax ; not, however, for
the Florida, but to supply some steamer with the means of running the
J British Appendix, vol. i, p. 111.
'United States Case, p. 358; United States Argument, p. 161.
3 United States Docnments, vol. i, p. 73*2.
* Hritish Appendix, vol. v, pp. ,% 13.
*ibid., p. r*r>.
OPINIONS OF SIR ALEXANDER COCKBURN. 437
blockade; aud, as he expresses it, to save that steamer " the loss of a
moou.'' This shows that the iutentioii was not to supply the Florida
with coal, and that the visit of the Florida to Bennnda was not in any
way connected with the voyage of the Harriet Pinckney ; still less was
there anything to suggest the slightest suspicion of such a kind to the
coloQial authorities. Besides which, the auxietyof Captain Maflitt to
obtain coal from other quarters shows plainly that he had no expecta-
tion of a specific cargo being sent out for his vessel.
The charge of any violation of neutrality on the occasion of the last-
mentioned visit appears wholly to fail.
Leaving Bermuda on the 25th of July, the Florida arrived at Brest
on the 23d of August. This i)art of her history is touched
upon lightly and cautiously in the case of the United States;
yet the indulgence alleged to have been granted to this vessel in British
ports is but trilling as compared with that which was extended to her
in the French port ; and the events which occurred there are important
*a8 showing that the French government entertained notions more liberal
than our own on the subject of hospitality to be extended to belligerent
vessels. She had sustained considerable injury to her copper, and much
of her machinery required renewing, and workmen and materials had
to be brought from England, and these repairs were likely to require a
period of several months for their accomplishment. A considerable part
of her crew, the time for which they had engaged having expired, de-
sired their discharge. From the dispatches of Mr. Dayton, the United
States minister at Paris, to Mr. Secretary Seward, it appears that Mr.
Dayton began by remonstrating against any assistance being given to
the Florida at all. But the French government answered that, having
recognized the Confederate States as belligerents, they could not refuse
them the ordinary assistance rendered to ships of war in need of repairs.
Next. Mr. Dayton insisted that, as the Florida was a good sailing ves-
sel, no repair should be allowed to be done to her machinery. But to
this M. Drouyn de Lhuys answered, *'that if she were deprived of her
machinery, she would be pro tanto disabled, crippled, and liable, like a
duck with its wings cut, to be at once caught by the United States
steamers. He said it would be no fair answer to say the duck had legs
and could walk or swim. He said that, in addition to this, the offi-
cers of the port had reported to the government that the vessel was
leaking badly, that she made water at so much per hour (giving the
measaremeut) and unless repaired she would sink."^
There being no commercial dock at Brest, Captain Maffitt applied for
the use of a government dock. Mr. Dayton remonstrated ; but M.
Dronyn de Lhuys replied that, where there was no commercial dock, as
at Brest, it was customary to grant the use of any accommodation there
to all vessels in distress, upon payment of certain known and fixed
rates; that they must deal with this vessel as they would with one of the
United States ships,- or the ships of any other nation; and that to all
sack these accommodations would be granted at once.^
Lastly, permission having been asked to ship new hands, in the place
of those whose time had expired, M. Dayton strongly opposed it. He
thus states the result :
M. Dronyn de Llinys iafonned me that this i^overiiiuent, after much cuiifereucc(aad,
I think, 80(ne hesitation,) had coucluded not to isnuo an order prohibiting an accesHion to
the crew of the Florida while in port, inasmuch as such accession was necessary to her
DavigatioD. They bad made inquiries, it would seem, and they had ascertained that
the seventy or seven ty-tivn men discharge<l after she came into Brest were discharged
* British App.^ndix, vol. vi, p. i:W.
• Ibid.
438 ARBITRATION AT GENEVA.
because the period for which they had shipped had expired. He ftaid, furthermore, that
it WEH reported to him that the Kearaarge had likewiHe applie<l for eoine sailors and a
pilot iu that port, as well as for coal, and leave to make repairs, all of which had becD,
and would be, if more were needed, cheerfully granted.
I told him i was (juito confident the Kearsargo hatl made no attempt to ship a crew
there, and that, as respects a pilot, that stood on ground peculiar to itself, aud had no
reference to the general principle.
The determination which has been reached by the French authorities to allow the
shipment of a crew, or so largo a portion of one, on board of the Florida while lyiu^
in their port is, I think, wrong, even supposing that vessel a regularly commissiQned
Khip of war. ' I told M. Drouyu de Lhuys, that, looking at it as a mere lawyer, and
clear of prejudices which my official position might create, I thought this determina-
tion an error. He said, however, that iu the conference they had reaolvNl
nJ'.i '^''""''' " that uuanimousl}^ although a majority of the ministry considering the
question were lawyers.^
From a report by the. British consul at Brest, ou the subject of the
reception and stay of the Florida at that port, it appears that —
(*aptain Maffitt, the commander of the Florida, was informed by the admiral of the
port, (pr<5fet maritime,) Vice-Admiral Count de G^eyton, that he was at liberty to •
etfect the repairs of the ship and provide her with coal and provisions, the same as
any merchant-ship. ••#»•♦*•♦
The commercial resources of Brest proving insufficient to effect the repairs of the
Florida, application was made to the port-admiral to allow her to ent«r the govern-
ment dock-yard, and permission for her to do so was granted, it being stipulated that
all expenses should be re-imbursed by tlie agent, M. Aumaltre, and that her powder-
magazine should be cleared before entering the dock. To effect the latter operation, a
government barge was furnished for thex)nrpose of removing the ammuuitiou ; and thi»
barge was, later, moored in the bay.
On the 9th of September, 1863, the Florida entered the government dock, and re-
mained there for general repairs for a period of about live weeks.
The Florida completed her repairs in the dock-yard, and afterward took moorings in
the merchant harbor of Brest, where she was slowly refitted. Ou the 27 th of Decem-
ber she was moved to the roadstead.
It appears that some of the mechanism of the more heavy guns of the Florida had
never ueen regulated, and her commander desiring to have this done, an application
was made to the port-admiral for permission to land the guns for that purpose ; but
this was at once and positively refused, on the gmund tliat such an act might be inter-
preted as equivalent to allowing a re-inforcement of arms.
Bat, it appears, her small-arms were allowed to be hindetl, in order to be repaired by
a gun-maker of Brest, named Kock ; this permission was granted, ou the agent, M.
Aumaltre, giving a guarant-ee to the authorities of the custom-house that they shoiih!
be reshipped on Doard the Florida.
No arms or ammunition were furnished to the Florida while at Brest.
Through M. Aumaltre, the agent, M. Rainals ascertained that thirty-five seameci
claimed and obtained their discharge from the Florida here; that they were, iu part,
replaced by others, chiefly natives of Belgium, Germany, Italy, aud Southern Austria,
brought to Brest by railway direct from Paris, in numbers never exceeding four at a
time, and that they were q^iietly sent on board in similar numbers.
The Federal corvette Kearsarge re-appeared in Brest waters on the tW of JaDuarr,
1864; and, after steaming about the bay to within a mile of. the town, again pro-
ceeded to sea. p
The Florida, being ready for sea, left Brest between 9 and 10 o'clock on the evenin;:
of the 9th of February, 1804, in charge of a pilot ; and at a distance of about tbirt>
miles from that port, passed through tlie dangerous passage Du Kaz, inside the Saint^.
landing the pilot at Audierue.-
T cannot help surmising that, if all this had happened in one of Hei
Majesty's ports ; if a government dock-yard had been placed at the dis-
posal of a confederate cruiser; if such cruiser had been allowed to
remain six months ; to have her small-arms repaired ou shore; and to
take in as much coal as she wanted, " like any raerchant-ressel," and
largely to recruit her crew, this tribunal would not have failed to find
a very eloquent and indignant denunciation of such a violation of neu-
trality in the papers which have been presented to us.
' British Appendix, vol. vi, p. VMu
■' Ibid., vol. i, pp. 120, 127.
OPIXIOXS OF SIR ALEXANDER COCKBCRN. 439
After leaving Brest on the 12tli of February, 18G4, the Florida visited
the French colony of INIartiniqiie, where she remained from ^^ M„rii,»qu.-
the 2(]th of April to the 7th of ^lay repairing her ma-
chinery and taking in a full supply of coal.* On the 12th of May she
touched at Bermuda, but only to laud a sick officer, and left again at once.^
On the 18th of June, 1804, slie again put into Bermuda,
being then under the command ot Lieutenant G. M. Mor-
ris.*^ Lieutenant Morris immediately wrote to Colonel Munro, the act-
ing governor, stating that his vessel was in want of coals, provisions,
and repairs, and requesting permission to have the necessary repairs to
the propeller and blow-valve done at Her Majesty's dock-yard, as they
could not otherwise be effected \* and Governor Munro having referred
the application to Sir James Ilope, the admiral on the station, Sir
James Hope directed a survey of the vessel to be made by competent
officers, who, on the 20th, reported as follows :
We have the honor to report that, baviiif^, in obedience to your directions, beeu on
board the Florida, and with tbe assistance of Messrs. Thompson and ., ,
Lei tch, assistant engineers, examined h«jr machinery, we beg to make '" """''
the following report :
1. She can proceed to sea with such repairs as can be made good here, which, <as
far as w«* are able to judge, will re<inire five days for one man, viz, a diver for two
days and a fitter for three days, or three complete days in all.
2. She can proceed to sea with safety in her present state under steam, but under
sail is nn manageable with her screw up in bad weather, and her defects aloft (cross-
trees) render main topmast unsafe. This could be made goo<l in two days.
3. Her horse-power is 200.
Consumption of fuel going full speed 15 cwt.
Speed 10 knots.
Consumption of fuel going half speed 7^ cwt.
►Speed : S knots.
4. We are of o))inion that the Florida should be abhj to fetch the following places in
the time and with the coal stated against each, viz :
Hoars. Tons
Wilmington IK} 4Q
Charleston 129 52
Savannah I:i8 55
Mobile r '. '. 250 100
We have, Ac,
AUTHCR H. (J. KICIIARDSOX,
Lieutenant.
EDWAKl) O. (MUCnTON,
Chit/ Engineer,
Vice- Admiral Sir J. HorK, ijV., «)r., «J'v.
P. S. — The Florida can stow 130 tona of coal.''
Upon this a stay of five working days was accorded for the comple-
tion of the necessary repairs.^ Permission was given to ship 80 tons of
coal.
Three heads of complaint are put forward by the United States Gov-
ernment as to what was done on this occasion. Twice over it is stated
that, a sfay of Jive days having been granted, that stay was extended
to wine*
We have here another of those inaccurate statements of fact, the
effect of which may be to mislead the tribunal. The stay of the Florida
at Bermuda on this occasion was only nine days in the whole. But the
' British Appendix, vol. i, p. 131.
- Ibid., p. 132; United States Documents, vol. vi, p. 3r»5.
' British Appendix, vol. i, p. 13*2.
» Ibid., vol. V, p. 9.
•■'British Appendix, vol. v, p. 11.
^ Ibid., pp. G, 11, 12.
' Case of the United States, pji. IV'A), 'M)l.
440 ARBITRATION AT GEXEVA.
earlier portion of that time was occupied iu the prelimiuary comuiuDi-
cations and in the survey. The stay of five days was p:ranted by the
governor on the 2l8t of June. The Florida left on the 27th. The total
stay of nine days has thus been confounded with the stay after the
granting of the five days. I should be ashamed to suggest that this
misrepresentation was intentionally made ; but I must repeat that those
who accuse persons in authority of misconduct should take more care to
be accurate as to their facts.
It is next stated that, instead of 20 tons, the Florida wiis allowed to
take 135.* But on reference to the report of the surveying officers, it
will be seen that they estimate 46 tons as the amount necessary for the
vessel, if seeking the nearest port, namely, Wilmington ; 100 tons if
seeking the furthest, namely', Mobile ; with varying amounts if making
for intermediate ports.
Lieutenant Morris assured the governor that the port he expected to
make was Mobile.^ The governor compromised the matter by giving
permission to load 80 tons. Lieutenant Morris reported officially in
writing to the governor that he had loaded 80 tons, as appears by the
letter of Governor Munro to Mr. Secretary Card well of the 7 th of July,
1864.3 3qIj j;|jg United States produce a voucher for 135 tons of coal
shipped on this occasion.^
If it be true that Lieutenapt Morris abused the confidence of Colonel
Munro, and took in 135 tons instead of 80, all that this proves is that
Lieutenant Morris acted in a manner unworthy of an officer and a gen-
tleman. Is it to be said that it wa^ the duty of the governor to send
officers to watch the shipment of the coal, and see that Lieutenant
Morris did not play a dishonorable part and abuse the trust reposed in
him, and that the quantity was not exceeded? Such a proceeding
would have implied a disbelief in the word of the officer commanding a
ship of war, and therefore would more or less have amounted to an
affront. I cannot think it was necessary.
The next complaint is, that whereas five days' work was reported by
the surveyors to be e^l that was necessary to be done to the vessel,
twenty days of carpenters' work was done to her.* The voucher pro-
ducedshows that four carpenters were employed for four days.^ Look-
ing to the small quantity of materials charged for, it is probable that,
if an undue amount of time was occupied in carpenters' work, it arose
from the nnskillfulneas of the workmen.
The number of men required for the repairs of the maintop-mast is not
stated in the report of the officers. The work of four men for four days
may have proved absolutely necessary.
But even if a small and microscopic criticism could here discover any-
thing to find fault with, here again the fault waB that of the officer com-
manding the Florida, not of the authorities. Or, is it to be said that
here also a watch should have been set to measure the precise amonnt
of work to which the caq>enters should have been limited f
But complaint is made that, besides coal, the Florida was allowed to
take in large supplies of provisions, clothing, and other stores, even of
medicines ! "^ For what purpose this is stated I cannot conceive. If it is
» United States Ca«e, p. 36*2.
2 British Appendix, vol. v, p. 4.
3 Ibid., vol. 1, p. 133.
* United States Docamonts, vol. vi, p. 359.
'^Case of the United States, p. 361.
•^United States Documents, vol. vi, p. 361.
' Case of the Unitwl States, p. 361.
OPINIONS OF SIR ALEXANDER COCKBURN. 441
meaut to be said that herein there was any breach of neutrality, such a
proposition implies ignorance of the first principles of international law.
All the articles enuioerated are things which a belligerent has a perfect
right to procure in a neutral port, and which the governor could neitber
prevent the commander of such a vessel from buying, or the Queen's sub-
jects from selling to him.
There is one other complaint, which I confess occasions me both sur
prise and pain. It is that, although the surveyors had reported that
*' the vessel was unmanageable with her screw up in bad weather," and
that '' her defects aloft (cross-trees) rendered the maintop-mast unsafe,''
yet, as they had reported that " she could proceed to sea with safety in
her then state under steam,'' the governor ought not to have allowed the
repairs necessary to render her safe when under sail.^ We have hero
tlie converse of Mr. Dayton's contention with the French government,
bat in a more objectionable form. When it is borne in mind that in a
screw-steamer steam is but an auxiliary power, and that no such vessel
is ever committed to the ocean without everything necessary to her
safety under sail being in a seaworthy condition ; when it is remembered
that all machinery is liable to accident, especially such as is exposed to
the action of the elements, and that if anything had happened to the
machinery of this vessel in her then condition, she would have been ex-
posed, with her living freight, crippled and helpless, to danger and dis-
aster, I think the proposition which the tribunal is asked to adopt ought
not to find much favor in its sight. For myself I can only say, that I
trust and believe no British governor, placed in similar circumstances,
would — let our decision be what it may, let the political consequences be
what they will — be so wanting in a sense of what is due to humanity
and to the honor of his country as to act otheiiwise than I am glad to
think the governor of Bermuda acted on this occasion.
I have only further to observe that when much is made in the case of
the United States of the fact that the Florida, instead of proceeding to
the nearest port, was kept cruising off the islands, lookingont for United
States vessels, which no doubt api)ears to have been the case, ' the same
observation occurs as before. Such a course of conduct may have been
dishonorable in Lieutenant Morris, as being in breach of the good faith
he ought to have kept with the governor, but it certainly cannot be as-
cribed as a fault to the latter.
No doubt the conduct of Lieutenant Morris is open to observation.
He came back afterwards to the island, on the pretext of delivering up
two deserters, but in fact to try and get more coal, which, however, was
peremptorily refused. ^ But the answer lies in a word : Lieutenant Mor-
ris was an officer bearing a commission and wearing a sword in the
service of an American government; as such, he was entitled to the
presumption which attaches to such a position, and which presupposes
the impossibility of acts inconsistent with the highest sense of honor
and the most scrupulous good faith. To have acted on such a presump-
tion ought not to be ascribed, by a tribunal of honorable men, to those
who did so, as a want of due diligence in the discharge of any duty they
were called on to fulfill on the part of a neutral government.
On the 5th of October, 1864, the Florida entered the port of Bahia,
whereupon Mr. Wilson, the United States consul, forthwith addressed a
letter to the president of the province in the accustomed terms:
> Case of tho United States, p. 362.
♦See BritiHh Appendix, vol. i, p. 133.
^ Ibid.
442 ARIUTKATION AT GENEVA.
Consulate of tiik Umtkd Statks of America,
BahiUf October 5, lc?64 — 9 a. m.
Sir : This iiiorniu;; ji stfamer .inchored in this port bearing the flagadopte<l by those
who are involved in the rcbelliou a^rainst the (loverninent* of the Uuited States of
America, and I am informed that the Baid vesKcl is the Florida, whicb i8 engaged iu
rapturing vessels navigating under the flag of the United Stat<*8 of America, and iu
destroying them by making bonfires of them and their cargoes.
The vessel iu question is not v^om missioned by any recognized government what-
ever, and In^r otticers and crew are composed of ]>ersons of various nationalities, who
are not subject to any international or civilized law, and are consequently uot entitled
to the privileges and immnnities conceded to vessels navigating under the flag of a
civilized nation. I therefore protest, in the name of the United States of America.
against the admission of this vessel to free practice, by which she might bo enabled to
supply herself with coal, provisions, tackle, or utensils of any kind whatever, or receive
on board any persons whatever; finally, against any assistance, aid, or protection
which might bo conceded to her iu this port, or in any other belonging to this
province.
I likewise claim that the piratical cruiser which, iu combination with the pirate
Alabama, violated the sovereignty of the imperial government of Brazil by captaring
and destroying vessels belonging to citizens of the United States of America, within the
territorial waters of Brazil, near the island of Feroaudo de Noronha, in April, lti63, be
detained, with all heroflicers and crew, in order to answer for so flagrant a violation
of the sovereignty of the government of Brazil and of the rights of citizens of the
United States within the jurisdietion of the Brazilian government.
I avail, &c.,
THOMAS F. WILSOX,
CoHfiul of the United 5'a.*e«.'
His Excellency Antonio .JoA<^riM ha Silva (ioMi-:/,
rntiident of the Provinvt- of Bahia.
The president replies :
In rep>y to the consul, I have to inform him that, as the said vessel belongs to the
Confederate States, in whom the imperial government recognized the character of
belligerents, all the assistance required by humanity may be furnishe<l her which does
in no wise constitute assistauee for warlike purposes, as laid down by international
law, and does not conflict with that neutrality which this government stadioaslyseek^
to preserve, and has always preserved, in the contest between the States of North
America. The undersigned cannot, therefore, admit the flrst portion of the claim of the
consul, iu the general manner in which it was presented, and particularly in relatiou
to those articles considered as contraband of war in conformity with instractiooc
issued on that subject by the imperial government, and according to which the said
vessel will only be permitted to remain in this port for the length of time absolutely
indispensable.
In regard to the second part of his not4^, it is my duty to observe to the consnl that,
even if it were fully established that the Florida had previously violated neutrality,
such a proceeding would scarcely authorize us to refuse her permission to enter tlie
ports of the empire, and would never warrant us to commit the acts reqnired by the
consul, which wonld be equivalent to a hostile rupture, without the intervention of
the supreme government of the State, which is one competent ^o authorize such a rup-
ture.*^
Before daybreak on the morn in ji^ of the 7 th the Florida was surprised
in the port of Bahia and taken by the United States war-steamer
AVachnsett and carried oft' as a prize.
She sank shortly after her arrival in Chesapeake Bay, in consequence,
as was asserted, of her having sprung a leak during her voyage, and of
her having been injured while at anchor by a United States transport.
3rr. Seward appears at first to have been disposed to think that the
Brazilian government, in ^^ furnishing of shelter and a haven to pirates,"*
was as much to blame as the captain of the Wachusett, as we find him,
on hearing what had occurred, writing thus to Mr. Webb:
Defautment op State,
WaskiHgtoH^ Xovrmber U, liiGI.
Sin: In the years l'*G2 and ^^y^ remonstrances were a<ldres8ed by us t<i the govern-
ment of Hrazil against the policy, di^erent as it was from that of all other Americao
* British Appendix, vol. i, p. 146.
- Ibid., p. 147.
OPINIONS OF SIR ALEXANDER COCKBURN. 443
States, in regard to the farnisliing of shelter and a haven to pirates who were engaged in
depredating upon the peaceful commerce of the United States. The correspondence
came to a close without having produced any satisfactory result, and not without
leaving a painful presentiment that a continuance of measures so injurious to the
United States would, sooner or later, alfect the harmonious relations heretofore exist-
injj hetween the two countries.
We have just now heard of the capture of the Florida by the Wachusett, at Bahia,
and of the consequent hostilities adopted by the Brazilian forces in that port ; but we
have no particular information of the circumstances which preceded the collision, and
our information concerning the transaction itself is incomplete. At the same time wu
are absolutely without knowledge of any correspondence that it may have elicited be-
tween yourself and the Brazilian government.
In this stage of the matter the President thinks it proper that you should inform the
iniDister of foreign affairs that wo arc not indisposed to examine the subject upon its
merits carefully, and to consider whatever qnestions may arise out of it in a becoming
and friendly spirit, if that spirit shall be a<lopted by His Imperial Majesty's govern-
ment.^
The government of Brazil protested immediately in strong terms
Jigainst this violation of its sovereignty and the neutrality of its waters.
The following letter was immediately written by Senhor Barbosa da
Silva, the Brazilian charge d'afiaires at Washington, to Mr. Seward:
[TraiiMlation.)
Imperial Legation of Brazil,
Wathingtonf Decembe)' 12, 1864.
The undei*signed, charg^ d*af!aires ad interim of His Mi^esty the Emperor of Brazil,
has just received orders from his government to address himself, without delay, to that of
the United St.ates of North America ahout an act of the most transcendant gravity, done
on the morning of the 7th day of October last, in the port of the capital of the province
of Babia, by the war-steamer Wachusett, belonging to the Navy of the Union, an act
which involves a manifest violation of the territorial jurisdiction of the empire, and
an effense to its honor and sovereignty.
On the 4th day of the month referred to there entered that port, where already had
been lying for some days the Wa<?hu8ett, the confederate steamer Florida, for the pur-
IK>se, declared by her commander to the president of the province, to supply herself
with alimentary provisions and coal, and to repair some tubes of her machinery.
The Preaideut, proceeding in accordance with the policy of neutrality which the
empire resolved to adopt on the question in which unfortunately these States are
involved, and in conformity with the instructions in this respect issued by the imperial
government on the 23d of June of the year last past, assented to the application of the
commander of the Floyda, and fixed the term of forty-eight hours for taking in sup-
plies, and fixing, in dependence on the final examination by the engineer of the arsenal,
the determination of the residue of the time which, perad venture, should be deemed
indispensable for the completion of the repairs.
The same authority at once took, with the greatest impartiality, all the measures-
necessary to avoid any conflict between the two hostile steamera.
The Florida was placed under cover of the batteries of the Brazilian corvette D.
Jannaria, on the inshofe side, at the request of her commander, who, reposing on the
faith with which, without doubt, the chief authority of the province could not fail to
inspire him, considered himself slieltered from any attack of his adversar3% and in this
<'onfidence not only staid a night on shore, but gave liberty to a great part of the
crew of his vessel.
It behooves me to say that, as soon as the confederate steamer entered the port of
Bahia, the American consul, Wilson, addressed to the President a dispatch claiming
that tlie Florida should not be admitted to free pratique, and that on the contrary she
should be detained, alleging for this, that that vessel had, in concert with the Alabama,
violated the neutrality of the empire by making captures in 1863, near the island of
Fernando de Noronha.
Such exaggerated pretensions, founded on facts not proven, which had already been
the subject of discussion between the Imperial government and the legation of the
Knitocl States, could not be even listened to.
If the President should have refused the hospitality solicited by the commander of
the Florida he wonld have infringed not only the duties of neutrality of the empire,,
but also those of humanity, considering that steamer, coming from TenerifTe, had been
sixty-one days at sea, was unprovidetl with food, and with machinery in the worst con-
<lition.
British Appendix, vol. i, p. 152.
444 ARBITRATION AT GENEVA.
Afterwards tlie President baring stated to tbe same consul that bo boi)ed, from his
honor and loyalty toward a friendly nation, that he would settle with tbe commander
of the Wacbusett, that he should respect tbe neutrality and sovereignty of the empire,
he was answered affirmatively, the consul pledging his word of honor. Tbings were
in this condition, tbe term of forty-eigbt hours being to expire at 1 o'clock of tbe
afternoon of tbe 7tb, when about dawn of that day, the commander of the steamer
Wacbusett, suddenly leaving his anchorage, passed through the Brazilian vessels of war
and approached tbe Florida.
On passing aci'oss tbe bowsof the Brazilian corvette D. Januaria, he was bailed from
on board that he must anchor; but, as he did not attend to this intimation, and con-
tinned to approach the Florida, at tbe same time firing a gun and some musketry, the,
commander of tbe naval division of the Empire stationed in tbose waters sent an
officer on board the Wacbusett, and informed her commander that the ships of the
division and the forts would open fire upon her if she sbould attack tbe Florida. The
Brazilian officer was not allowed to make fast to tbe Wacbusett, but tbe officer of the
<leck hailed him, saying, in reply that he accepted the intimation given, that he would
do notbiug more, and tbat he was going to return to his anchorage. Tbe commander
of the Brazilian division then tbou^bt proper to ratify bis intimation by firing a gun.
upon which a complete silence ioUowcd between tbe two ships Wacbusett ami
Florida.
At tbe time this was x>assing, tbe corvette D. Januaria, on board which tbe com-
mander of diviHion bad hoisted his flag, lay head to flood, tbe steamer Florida anchored
B.B., side by side of her, and quite close to the shore, and between her and thecorvett«
the Wacbusett stopped her wheels. .
The commander of division then observing — notwithstanding tbe darkness of the
night — tbat tbe Wacbusett, from the position in which she was, kept moving onwanl
and was passing ahead of the corvette, in a course E.B., became convinced that, in fact,
.she was steering for her anchorage, thus complying with the promise made.
But a few moments aftorward, perceiving tbat the Florida was in motion, the com-
mander discovered tbat the Wacbusett was taking her otf in tow by means of a louji;
cable.
Surprised at such an extraordinary attempt, tbe commander imme<liately set alx>nt
stopping this, and redressing at tbe same time, lus behooved bim, the offense thus done
to the dignity and sovereignty of the empire.
But availing himself of the darkness of the night, and of other circumstances, the
commander of tbe Wacbusett succeeded in carrying bis prize over the bar, and escap-
ing the just punishment be deserved. *
The consul, Wilson, preferred to abandon his post, withdrawing on board the Wacha-
sett.
The government of His Mugesty, as soon as it had official information of the event,
addressed to the legation of the United States at Rio Janeiro a note, in which, givioj;
a succinct exposition of the fact, it declared that it had no hesitation in believins that
it would hasten to give to it all proper assurances that the Government of the Union
would attend to the just reclamation of tbe empire as promptly^nd fully as the gravity
of the case demanded.
In correspondence with this expectative not« the worthy representative of the United
States was prompt in sending bis reply, in which he declares he is conviuoed that hio
Government will give to that of the empire the reparation which is due to it.
Such are tbe facts to which the undersigntn] has received orders to call tbe attention
of the Hon. William H. Seward, Secretary of State of the United States.
The principles of international law which regulate this matter, and in respect of
which there is not the leitst divergence among the most distinguished publicists, an«
common and known to all. The undersigned would fail to recognize the high int«Ui-
gence of the Honorable Mr. Seward, if, i)erohance, he sbould enter in this respect into
fuller developments.
He limits himself, then, only to recall a memorable example, in which the»e princi-
ples, invariably sustained by the United States, had entire application. In 17u3, thi»
great Washington then being President of the UnitcMl States, and the illustrious Jeffer-
son Secretary of Stat^^, tbe French frigate TEmbuscade captured the English ship
Grange in Delaware Bay, thus violating tbe neutrality and tbe territorial sovereignty
of the United States. The American Government remonstrated energetically agaio^^
this violation, and require<l from the goveniment of tbe French Republic not only the
immediate delivery of the captured vessel, but also tbe complete liberation of all the
persons found on board. This reclamation was promptly satisfied. Mueh more grave,
certainly, is the occurrence in the port of the province of Bahia, which makes tbe
eubjectof the present note. By the special circumstances which preceded and
attended it, this act has no parallel in the annals of modern maritime war.
Tbe commander of the Wacbusett not only gravely offended the territorial immuni-
ties of the empire, passing beyond tbe laws of war by attacking treacherously, during
tbe night, a defenseloR** ship, whoso crew, much reduced, because more than sixty men
oriMONS OF SIR ALKXANDKK COCKBURN. 445
were oil slmre with the odinmancler and wveral oftieei's, n^posptl unwary beMioath thft
shadow of the prot4>ction which th» neatrality of the empire ^aaranteeirto tlieni; and
HO open was the violation, ho manifest the otfenne, that the enlightened American pre8.s
was ahnost unanimous in condemnation of the incxcuBahle proceeding of Commander
CoilinH.
On this oocaHion, reminding the United States, whose antecedents are well known
and noted in history hy the energetic defense of, and respect for, neutral rights, oC
those nushaken principles, the undersigned cannot consider the event which occurred
at Babia otherwise than as the indvidual act of the commander of the Wachusett, not
antborized or approved by his Government, and that it will consequently give to the-
government of Hi& Miyesty the Emperor the explanations and reparation which, in
conformity with international laws, are duo to a power which maintains friendly and
pacific relations with the United States.
The jnst reclamation of tlfe Imperial government being thus presented, the under-
signed awaits the reply of the Honorable Mr. Seward, and, fully confiding in his exalted
wisdom, and in the justice of the Crovernraent of the Uniteil States, ho has not even
for a moment doubted but that it will be as satisfactory as the incontestable right
which aids the empire, and the vast gravity of the oflense which wa8 done to it, may
reqnire.*
Mr. Seward^H answer is remarkable for its haughty tone, and still
more as showing the view which the Uniteil States Government per-
sisted in taking as to the inadmissibility of the Confederate States to-
the character of belligerents, notwithstanding that all the great mari-
time states had agreed throughout, in conformity with principle sind
precedent, in according to them the status of belligerency :
Dkpartmkxt ok Statk,
WashingtoHy December *20, lHti4.
I have the. honor to acknowledge the receipt of ycuir note, which seta forth the stniti-
ments of the Imperial government of Brazil concerning the capture of the Florida by
the United States war-steamer Wachusett in the port of Bah in.
You will, of course, explain to your government that, owing to an nnderstrvuding
lictween you and myself, your note, although it bears the dat4» of the I'itli December,
was not submitted to me until the 2Ist instant.
Jealousy of foreign intervention in every form, and absolute non-intervention ii>
the domestic affairs of foreign rmtions, are cardinal principles in the policy of the
United States. You have, therefore, justly expected that the President would disavow
and regret the proceedings at Bahia. lie will suspend Captain (yollins, and direct him
to ap|)ear before a court-martial. The consul at Bahia admits that he advised and in-
cited the captain, and was active in the procM^edings. He will therefore be dismissed.
The flag of Brazil will receive from the Unite4 States Navy the lumor customary in the
intercourse of friendly maritime powers.
It is, however, not to be understood that this Governuu»nt admits or gives credit to.
the charges of falsehood, treachery, and deception which you have brought against
the captain and the consul. These charges are denied on the authority of the otficers
accused.
Y'ou will also be pleased to understand that the answer now given to your represen-
tation rests exclusively upon the ground thi!lt the capture of the Florida was an unau-
thorized, unlawful, and indefensible exercise of the naval force of the United States
within a foreign country, in detiauce of its established and <iuly recognized Govern-
ment.
This Government disallows your assumption that the insurgents of this country are
a lawful naval belligeixint; and, on the contrary, it maintains that the ascription of
that character by the government of Brazil to insurgent citizens of the United States,
who have hitherto been, and who still are, destitute of naval forces, ports, and courts,
is an act of intervention, in derogation of the law of nations, and unfriendly and
wronn^ul, as it is manifestly injurious to the UnitiHl States.
8oy also, this Government disallows your assumption that the Florida belonge<l to the
aforementioned insurgents, and maintains, on the contrary, that that vessel, like the
Alabama, w^as a pirate, belonging to no nation or lawful belligerent, and therefore
(hat the harboring and supplying of these piratical ships and their crews in Brazilian
ports were wrongs and injuries for which Brazil justly owes reparation to the United
StateA, as ample us the reparation which she now receives from them. They ho})e, and
confidently expect, this reciprocity in good time, to restore the harmony and friend-
ship which ai'e so essential to the welfare and safety of the two countries.
in tbe positions which I have thus assumed, the imperial government will recognize
nritisli Appendix, vol. i, p. ir>3.
44G ARBITRATION AT GENEVA.
an adheronce to the li^jlits whicb have been constantly •a.sserted, and an endunn<;
Kense of injuries which have been the subjects of earnest remonstrance by the United
States dnriuf? the hist three years. The government of Brazil is again informed tliat
these positions of this Government are no longer deemed open to argument.
It does not, however, belong to the captains of ships of war of the United States, or
to the commanders of their armies, or to their consuls residing in foreign port«s, acting
without the authority of Congress, and without even Executive direction, and choos-
ing their own time, manner, and occasion to assert the rights an^ redress the wrongs
of the country. This power can be lawfully exercised only by the Government of the
United States. As a member of the family of nations, the United States practice
order, not anarchy, as they always prefer lawful proceedings to aggressive violence or
retaliation. The United States are haupy in being able to believe that Brazil enter-
tains the same sentiments. The authorities at Bahia ar^ understood to have uosuc*
cessfully employed force to overcome the Wachusett and rescue the Florida, and to
have continued the chase of the offender beyond the waters of Brazil out upon the
high seas. Thus, in the affair at Bahia, subordinate agents without the knowledge of
their respective governments, mutually inaugurated an unauthorized, irregular, and
unlawful war. In desisting from that war on her part, and in appealing to this Gov-
ernment for redress, Brazil rightly appreciated the character of the United Stiites, and
set an example worthy of emulation.
The disposition of the captured crew of the Florida is determined n]>on the prin-
• ciples which I have laid down. Although the crew are enemies of the United States,
and, as they contend, enemies of the human race, yet the offenders were, nevertheless,
unlawfully brought into the custody of this Government, and therefore they conld not
lawfully be subjected here to the punishment which they have deserved. Nor could
they, being enemies, be allowed to enjoy the protection of the United States. They
w^ili, therefore, be set at liberty, to seek a reui^e wheresoever they may Hud. it, with
the hazard of recapture when beyond the jurisdiction of this Government.
The Florida was brought into American waters, and was anchored, under naval sur-
veillance and protection, at Hampton Roads. While awaiting the representation of
the Brazilian government, on the 28th November, she sunk, owing to a leak which
could not be seasonably stopped. Tbe leak was at iirst represented to have been
caused, or at least increased, by a collision with a war transport. Orders were imme-
diately given to ascertain the manner and circumstances of the occurrence. It seemed
to affect the Army and the Navy. A naval court of inquiry and also a military court
of inquiry were charged with the investigation. The naval court has submitted iti»
report, and a copy thereof is herewith communicated. The military court is yet en-
gaged. So soon as its labors shall have ended, the result will be made known to your
government. In tbe mean time it is assumed that the loss of the Florida was a conse-
quence of some unforeseen accident, which cast no responsibility upon the United
States.^
When this correspondence, together with that which passed on tbe
occasion of the Sumter, the Alabama and the Florida, in 1862 and 1863»
and which I have already referred to, is borne in mind, it is somewhat
surprising that Brazil should be held np for our special admiration in
contrast to the defective neutrality of Great Britain. Our worthy Bra-
zilian colleague will, I doubt not, appreciate the compliment thus paid
to the country of which he is the distinguished representative,
CASE OF THE ALABAMA.
I proceed to consider the facts relating to the Alabama, which, I am
The AUbamn, ^^^^ ^ ®^^' ^^^ ^^ brouglit iuto a much shorter compass
than those relating to the Florida. We are now in possess-
sioa of the whole history of this vessel, partly through the published
journal of her commander; but, in deciding whether Her Majesty's
government were wanting in due diligence in not seizing her, the tri-
bunal can look only to the facts as they existed at the time of her
escape, and the amount of available evidence then forthcoming to
justify and support her seizure.
There is no doubt that, from the beginning, the Alabama was a vessel
intended for war, and constructed and adapted accordingly, although,
as is stated in the case of the United States, ^' she was designed as a
'British Appendix, vol. i, p. 155.
OPINIONS OF SIR ALEXANDER COCKBUKN. 447
scourge of the eneray-'s commorec ratlier than for battle.'" We now
know that from the beginning shp was intended for the confederate
service. The fact that slie was ordered by Bullock expressly for the
Confederate States is, no doubt, true; but, at the time in question, this
was wholly unknown to the British authorities. f
Commenced in October or November, 1861, by Messrs. Laird, the
well-known shipbuilders of Liverpool, the vessel, known then only by
her number, (290,^ was launched on the 15th May, 1862.
She had already attracted the attention of Mr. Dudley, whom we find
writing about her to Mr. Secretary Seward on the day following her launch :
In a previous dispatch I mentioned the fact that Messrs. Laird & Co. were bui'din<^
a giin-boat at Birkenhead, which, I believe, was intended for the confederacy. This
boat was launched yesterday ; she will be, when finished, a very superior boat.
He then gives a a description of her, and winds up by saying :
There is no doubt but what she is intended for the rebels. This was mlniitted by
one of the leading; workmen in the yard ; ho said she was to be the sister to the
Oreto, and for the same jHirpose and service.'
After this, Mr. Dudley remains quiet for a month ; but, on the 18tli
of June, writes again :
The gun-boat building for the confederates by Messrs. Laird will soon bo completed
She made a trial- trip last Thursday. None of the press were invited. No one was
.icimitted on board without a ticket. They were issued only to the persons actively
engaf^ed in aiding the rebellion. All the active persons and houses engaged in fitting
out ships, &c., were represented on her. The New York papers have published articles
stating that information of ships fitting out at this port is sent to our Government.
These pieces hjive been copied in the newspapers here, and the effect has been to make
the people much more careful and guarded. It is now difficult to obtain information
about this vessel. They will not admit anyone, exceiit those connected with the yard,
to go in.
After giving a full description of the vesssel, he adds :
No pains or expense lias been spared in her construction, and, when finished, she will
he a very superior boat of her class. Indeed, they say there will be no better afloat.
Her trial-trip was entirely satisfactory. She willbe finished and ready for her arma-
ment in about ten days or two weeks. I have not yet learned what it is to be. The
l>latforms for the guns that are being made are such that the gun can be used on both
slides of the vessel.^
On the 21st of June, Mr. Dudley, wTio had been to London to see Mr*
Adams, the United States minister, on the subject of this jh- AUbRmn, .t
vessel, wrote, on the suggestion of the latter, a letter to be '-*^«'^*«<"-
forwarded by him to Her Majesty's government. Writing to Mr. Seward
on the 27th of June, Mr. Dudley says :
Being entirely satisfied in my own mind that this vessel was intended as a privateer
for the rebel government, and that it was my duty to use ev^ry effort to prevent her
Hailing, I went up to London to confer with Mr. Adams. At his instance I drew up
sind addressed to him a note, a copy of which is Inclosed, marked No. 1. lie inclosed a
copy of this, accompanied with an energetic note from himself to Earl Russell. Mr.
Aciams thinks there is a better feeling on the part of the Government toward us, and
t'bat they will now do what they can to conciliate us, and will stop the fitting out of
tUis Tessel. It is to be hoped that they will do it, as she wonld do much mischief to
our commerce if she got out in some quarter distant from our cruisers. One of the
X>a.ird8, an active member of this firm, is a member of Parliament. This vessel is ready
t'«>r eea, and if not prevented will sail before the end of next week. Captain Bullock
^i^rtll command her. She will enter upon the business as a privateer at once, and not
£«tt«mpt to run into a Southern port. It is said that her armament will consist of
cloven gnns, all of heavy caliber.^
» Page 365^
' United States Documents, vol. vi, p. 373.
3 Ibid., p. 374.
^United States Documents, vol. vi, p. 377.
448 ARBITRATION AT GENEVA.
Mr. Dudley's letter to Mr. Adaius, under date of the 2l8tof June, was
as Ibllows :
Tho giiii-boat uow beinjr built by tbe McBsrs. Lairti & Co., at Birkenhead, oppo&ik
Liverpool, and which I ineutioued to you in a previous diHpatch, is intended for theeo-
called conlVderate government in the Southern States. The evidence I have is entirely
conclugive to my mind. I do not think there is the least room for doubt abont it.
Beaufort aud Caddy, two of the officers from the privateer Sumter, stated that this
vessel was being built for the Confederate States. The foreman in Messrs. Laird's yard
says she is the sister to the gun-boat Oreto, aud has been built for the same parties and
for the same purpose ; when pressed for a furtlier explanation he stated that she 'iras
to be a privateer for the ** Southern government in the IJuited States.'^ The captain
and officers of the steamer Julia Usher, now at Liverpool, and which is loaded to mn
the blockade, state that this gun-boat is for the confederates, and is to be commanded
by Captain Bullock.
The strictest watch is kept over this vessel ; no person except those immediately en-
gaged upon her is admitted into the yard. On the occasion of the trial trip made last
Thuri>day week, no one was admitted without a pass, and these passes were issued to
but few persons, and those >\'ho are kuown here as active secessionists engaged in
sending aid and relief to the rebels.
I understand that her armament is to consist of eleven guns, and that she is to enter
at once, as soon as she leaves this port, upon her business as a privateer.
The vessel is very nearly completed ; she has had her first trial trip. Thia trial wai«
successful, and entirely satisfactory to the persons who are su peri n tend iu;^ her con-
struction. She will be finished in nine or ten days. » « » •
When completed and armed she will be a juost formidable and dangerous craft; aod^
if not prevented from goiug to sea, will do much mischief to our commerce. The per-
sons engaged in her coustruction nay that no better vessel of her class was ever built.'
Transmitting this letter to Earl Russell on the 23d of Jane, Mr.
Adams, after adverting to the affair of the Oreto, goes on to say :
I am now under the painful necessity of apprising your lordship that a new and still
more powerful war-steamer is nearly ready for departure from the port of Liverpool on
the same errand. This vesstd ha8 been built and launched from the dock-yard of per-
son.s, one of whom is now sitting as a member of the House of Commons, and is fittio^:
out for the especial and manift^st object of carrying on hostilities by aea. It is abont
to be coumianded by one of the insurgent agents, the same who sailed in the Oret<i.
The parties engaged in the enterprise are ))ersons well known at Liverpool to be agents
aud ollicers of tho iusurgents iu tho United States, the nature and extent of whose
labors are well explained in the copy of an intercepted letter of one of them which I
received from my Government some days ago, aud which I had the honor to place in
your lordship's hands on Thui*Hday last.
I now ask permission to transmit, for your cousi deration, a letter addressed to me by
the consul of the United States at Liverpool, in confirnfatiou of the statements here
submitted, and to solicit such action as may tend either to stop the projected expedi-
tion, or to establish the fact that its pnrI)ose is not inimical to the people of tbeUuitrd
States.'^
The evidence, which was conclusive to Mr. Dudley's mind, and left na
doubt on it, and on which Mr. Adams asked for the seizure of the ves-
sel, was wholly insufficient to justify such a proceeding. The state-
ments of the two officers of the Sumter, and tiiose of the captain and
officers of the Julia Usher, then leaving Liverpool in order to ran the
blockade, and which Mr. Dudley could only produce at second hand,
would have been unavailable in an English court of justice. The un-
supported statement of a single workman from the ship-builders' yard,
even if such workman should be willing to reproduce it in the shape of
evidence on oath, would have fallen short of what probably would have
been deemed judicially requisite. The assertion of Mr. Adams, <Hhat
the parties engaged in the enterprise were well known at Liverpool to
be agents and officers of the insurgents,'' carried the case no farther. It
amounted only to a statement of general notoriety. A fact does not the
less require to be proved by positive evidence because it may be gen-
erally reported.
1 Appendix to British Case, vol. i, p. 179.
^Britifih Appendix, vol. i, p. 177.
OPINIONS OF SIR ALEXANDER COCKBURN. 449
The •' intercepted letter '^ referred to by ]Mr. Adams was a letter from
a Captain Caleb Huse, a captain of confederate artillerj% on subjects
(•oimected with the supply of artillery and rifles.^ The only parties in
this country referred to in it are Fraser, Trenholm & Co., who are
mentioned as having placed the Bahama at his disposal for the trans-
IK)rt of some batteries of artillery. It is stated in the United States
case that the officers who were to serve in the Alabama were in England
awaiting her completion, and were paid their salaries monthly at Fraser,
Trenholm & Co's.^ But it is not stated, as I think it should have been,
that this was not known at the time, even by Mr. Dudley, much less
by the British government. The fact first came to light in the following
April, when Yonge came forward to make disclosures.
Earl Bussell having in due course referred the letters of Mr. Adams
and Mr. Dudley to the department of the customs, the following report
was received by the commissioners from the surveyor of the port of Liv-
erpool, under date of the 28th of June :
LmsRPOOL, June 28, 1862.
Sir : I most respectfnUy beg to report that the vessel to which these papers refer
has not escaped the notice of tbe customs officers, but, as yet, nothing has transpired
concerning her which appeared to demand a special report.
The officers have at all times free access to the building-yards of the Messrs. Laird,
at Birkenhead, where the said vessel is now lying, and tnere has been no attempt on
the part of her builders to disguise what is most apparent to all-^that she is intended
for a ship of war.
Agreeably with yonr directions, I have personally inspected her, and find that she is
rightly described in the communication of the United States consul, except that her
engines are not on the osciUating principle. Her dimensions are as follows : length,
2li feet 6 inches ; breadth, 31 feet b inches ; depth, 17 feet 8 inches, and her gross ton-
nage, by the present rule of admeasurement, is 682 j^o^) tons.
^he has several powder-canisters on board, but neither guns nor carriages as yet.
The current report of that vessel is that she has been built for a foreign govem-
luent, and that is not denied by the Messrs. Laird, with whom I hare communicated
upon the subject, bat they do not appear disposed to reply to any questions with refer-
ence to the destination of the vessel after she leaves this port, and we have no other
reliable source of information.
It will be in your recollection that the current report of the gun-boat Oreto was,
that she had been built for a foreign government, which vessel recently left this port
under a British flag, without any guns or ammunition on board, as previously re-
liorted.
I beg to add that any furtlier information that may be obtailied concerning the ves-
.sel referred to will be immediately reported, agreeably with your directions.
Very respectfuUy,
E. MORGAN, Surveyor.^
The reports carrying the case no further, the solicitor of the customs
advised the Board :
At present there is not sufficient to show that the vessel in question falls within
the provisions of the seventh section of the foraign-enlistment act, or to give the
board of officers of this revenue power to interfere in this case. The officers at Liver-
pool have acted discreetly in keeping a watch u|>on her, and should continue to do so,
i til mediately reporting to the board any circumstances that they may consider to call
for directions, or advisable to bring uuder the board's notice ; but the officers ought
not to move in the matter without the clearest evidence of a distinct violation of the
for«^ign-eulistment act, nor unless at a moment of great emergency, the terms of the
act being extremely technical and the requirements^ as to intent being very rigid. It
may be that the ship, having regard to her cargo as contraband of war, might be
iiiKLiieHtionably liable to capture and condemnation, yet not liable to detention under
the forei$;n-enii;»tment act, and the seizors might entail upon themselves very serious
conseqaeuccs.
F. J. HAMEL,
JrxE 30, 1862.
^ British Appendix, vol. 1, p. 178.
^ Ibid., p. 366.
« Ibid., p. 183.
* Ibid., p. 18:^
29 B
450 ARBITRATION AT GENEVA.
The Commissioners of Customs concurred in opinion with their legal
adviser. In their report to the lords of the treasury, they add :
With reference to the statement of the United States consul, that the evidence he
has in regard to this vessel being intended for the so-called confederate government in
the Southern States is entirely conclusive to his mind, we would observe that, inaii-
niuch as the officers of customs of Liverpool would not be justified in taking any steps
against the vessel unless sufficient evidence to warrant her detention should be laid
before them, the proper course would be for the consul to submit such evidence as be
possesses to the collector at that port, who would thereupon take such measures as the
provisions of the foreign-enlistment act would require. Without the production of
full and sufficient evidence to Justify their proceedings, the seizing officers might entail
on themselves and on the government very serious consequences. ^
In forwarding these reports to Mr. Adams, Earl Bussell, in a note of
the 7th July to Mr. Adams, suggests to Mr. Adams '^ to instruct the
United States Consul at Liverpool to submit to the collector of enstoms
at that port such evidence as he may possess tending to show that his
suspicions as to the destination of the vessel in question were well
founded.^
Mr. Adams accordingly wrote to Mr. Wilding, the American Vice-Con-
sul at Liverpool, inclosing a copy of Earl EusselPs note, requesting him
to "communicate as soon as may be any evidence which he conld readily
command in aid of the object designated.''
lieferring to the requisition £hus made, Mr. Dudley, in a dispatch to
Mr. Seward of the 9th July, writes :
I do not think the British Government are treating us properly in this matter. Tht>y
are not dealing with us as one friendly nation ought to deal with another. When I.a^
the agent of my Government, tell them, from evidence submitted to me, that I have no
doubt about her character, they ought to accept this until the parties who are building;
her, and who have it in their power to show it' her destination and purpose are legiti-
mate and honest, do so. It is a very easy matter for the Messrs. Laird &. Co. to
Hhow for whom they are building her, and to give such information as to her purfM)^
as to be satisfactory to all parties. The burden of proof ought not to be thrown npou
us. In a hostile community like this it is very difficult to got information at any time
upon these matters, and if names are to bo given it would render it almost im^KtssibK'.
The government ought to investigate it, and not cull on us for proof.
Notwithstandinpf the view thus expressed that his belief as to her(ks-
tination was sufficient to call for the seizure of the vessel, Mr. Dudlev.
on the same day, addressed the following communication to the Collector
of Customs :
LiVEKPOOL, Jul if 9, l^'i-
Sir: In accordiince wirli a sngirestioii of Karl Russell in a communication to Mr.
Adams, the American minister in London, I beg to lay before you the information and
circumstances whicli have come to my knowledge relative to the gun-boat now beio):
fitted out by Messrs. Laird, at Birkenhead, for the confederates of the Southern Uoiteil
States of America, and intended to be used as a privateer against the United States.
On my arrival, and taking charge of the Consulate at Liverpool in November la^t.
my attention was called by the Acting-Consul and by other persons to two gun-boat^
being or to be fitted out for the so-called Confederate Government : the Oreto, fitted out
by Mr. Miller and Messrs. Fawcett, Preston & Co., and the one now in question. 8nl>*
sequent events fully proved the suspicion with regard to the Oreto to be well founded:
she cleared from Liverpool in March last for Palermo and Jamaica, but sailed direct
for Nassau, where she now is receiving her armament as a privateer for the so-caiM
confederate government ; and my attention was called repeatedly to the gnu-boat build-
ing by Mr. Laird by various persons, who stat^^d that she also was for a confederate
privat<eer, and was lieing built by the Messrs. Lairds for that express purpose.
In May last two officers of the southern phvat-eer Snmter, named Caddv and Bean-
fort, passed through Liverpool on their way to Havana and Nassau, and while herr
stated that there was a gun-boat building by Mr. Laird, at Birkenhead, for the Southern
C mfederacy ; and not long after that a foreman employed about the vessel iu Mr. Laird***
1 British Appendix, p. 182.
2 Ibid., p. 184.
3 United States Documents, vol. vi, p. 382,
OPINIONS OF SIR ALEXANDER COCKBL'RN. 451
yard stated that sbe was the sister of the Oreto, and intended for the same service, and
when pressed for an explanation further stated that she was to be a privateer for the
Southern Government' in the United States.
When the vessel was first tried, Mr. Wellsraan, one of the firm of Fraser, Trenholm
&. Co., (who are well known as agents for the confederate government,) Andrew and
Thomas Byrne, and other persons, well known as having been for months actively en-
c^j^d in sending munitions of war for said government, were present, and have accom-
panied her on her various trials, as they had accompanied the Oreto on her trial trip and
on her departure.
In April last, the southern screw^steamer Annie Childs, which had run the blockade
out of Charleston, and the name of which was changed at this port to the Julia Usher,
was laden with munitions of war, consisting of a large quantity of powder, rifled
cannon, 4&c., by Messrs. Fraser, Trenholm &, Co. for the southern confederacy, and left
Liverpool to run the blockade under the command of a Captain Hammer, and having
on board several of the crew of the privateer Sumter, to which I have before referred.
For some reason unknown, this vessel came back and is now here. Since her return
a youth named Robinson, who had gone in her as a passenger, has stated that the gun-
boat bnilding at Lairds' for the Southern Confederacy was a subject of frequent con-
versation among the officers while she (the Julia Usher) was out. That she was all the
time spoken of as a confederate vessel; that Captain Bullock was to command her;
that the money for her was advanced by Fraser, Trenholm de, Co. ; that she was not to
make any attempt to run the blockade, but would go at once as a privateer ; that she
was to mount eleven guns; and that if the Julia Usher was not going, the six men from
the Sumter, who were on board the Jnlia Usher, were to join the gun- boat. This youth,
being a native of New Orleans, was extremely anxious to get taken on board the gun-
boat, and wished the person he made the communication to, to assist him ana see
Captain Bullock on his behalf. He has, I understand, been removed to a school in Lon-
don. With reference to his statement, I may observe that Captain Hammer referred
to is a South Carolinian, has been for many years in Fraser, Trenholm & Co.'s employ,
is greatly trusted by them, and is also intimate with Captain Bullock, so that he would
be likely to bo well informed on the subject ; and as he had no notion at that time of re-
turning to Liverpool, he would have no hesitation in speaking of the matter to his offi-
cer^, and the persons from the Sumter. I may also state that Captain Bullock referred
to is in Liverpool, that he is an officer of the Confederate Navy, that he was sent over
here for th» express purpose of fitting out privateers and sending over munitions of
war ; that he transcicts his business at the office of Fraser, Trenholm &. Co. ; that he
has been all the time in communication with Faweett, Preston &. Ca, who fitted out
the Oreto, and with Lairds*, who are fitting out this vessel ; that he goes almost daily
on 1x>ard the gun-boat, and seems to be recognized as in authority.
A Mr. Blair, of Paradise street, in thin town, who furnished the cabins of the Laird
gun-l)oat, has also stated that all the fittings and furniture were selected by Captain
Bullock, and were subject to his approval, although paid for by Mr. Laird.
The information on which I have formed an undoubting conviction that this vessel
I A l)«iDg fitted out for the so-called Confederate Government, and is intended to cruise
against the commerce of the United States, has come to me from a variety of sources,
and I have detailed it to you as far as practicable. I have given you the names of
pemons making the statements, but as the information in most cases is given to me by
persons out of friendly feeling to the United States, and in strict confidence, I cannot
state the names of my informants; but what I have stated is of such a character that
little inquiry will confirm its truth.
Everything about the vessel shows her to be a war-vessel; she has well-constructed
niaj]Cazines ; she has a number of canisters of a peculiar and expensive construction for
containing powder; she has platforms already screwed to her decks for the reception
of swivel guns. Indeed, the fact that sbe is a war- vessel is not denied by Messrs.
Lairvl, but they say she is for the Spanish Government. This they stated on the 3d of
April last, when General Burgoyne visited their yard, and was shown over it and the
various vessels being built there by Messrs. John Laird, junior, and Henry H. Laird, as
wn» fully re])orted in the papers at the time.
Seeing the statement, and having been already informed from so many respectable
Hoarces that she was for the so-called Confederate Government, I at once wrote to the
luiiiister in Londou, to ascertain from the Spanish Embassy whether the statement was
true. The reply was a positive assurance that she was not for the Spanish Government.
I am therefore authorized in saying that what was stated on that occasion, as well as
MtAtenieuts since made that sbe is for the Spanish government, are untme.
I am satisfied beyond a doubt that she is for a Confederate war-vessel.
If yon desire any personal explanation or information, I shall bo happy to attend
yon whenever you may request it. '
Of the statemeDts contained in the foregoing letter the greater part
^ British Appendix, vol. i, p. ltJ5.
452 ARBITKATIOX AT GENEVA.
could not have been made available in an English court. For the rea-
sons I have alreadv mentioned, the loose statements made to Mr. Dudley
by persons unnamed ; the unauthorized statements of Caddy and Beau-
fort, on their way through Liverpool ; the loose conversations and equally
unauthorized statements of the officers on board the Annie Childs, re-
ported by the youth Kobinson, who had been removed to a school in
London, nobody knew where, would all have been iucadmissible accord-
ing to English procedure. The fact that particular persons, supposed to
be connected with the Confederates, had gone out in the vessel on her
trial trip was ecpiall^' worthless. But there were other facts which were
of a different stamp and deserved more attention than they appear to
Lave received.
The Collector returned for answer that he should immediatelv submit
Mr. Dudley's communication to the London board, adding, however, his
own opinion that the stat^^ment made by that gentleman " was not such
as could be acted upon by the officers of the revenue, unless legally
substantiated by evidence." * Forwarding Mr. Dudley's communication
to the board of customs, Mr. Edwards incloses a report from Mr. Mor
gan, the surveyor, saying that he has inspected the steamer; that she
is in the same state as regards her armament as on the date of his for-
mer report, having no guns or carriages on board, nor were her plat-
forms fitted to the deck. " If," says Mr. Edwards, "she is for the Con-
federate service, the builders and parties interested are not likely to
commit themselves by any act which would subject them to the i)enal
provisions of the foreign-enlistment act."*
The solicitor of the customs adopted the views of the Collector, and
thus advised the Board :
ITiero is only one proper way of looking at this question. If the Collector of Cuv
toms were to detain the vessel in question, he would no douht have to inaiotain the
seizure hy legal evidence in a court of law, and to pay damages and costs in case of
failure. Upon carefully reading the statement, I find that the greater part, if not alL
is hearsay and inadmissible, and as to a part tlie witnesses are not forthcoming or even
to be named. It is perfectly clear to my mind that there is nothing in it amounting to
prima-facie proof sufficient to justify a seizure, much less to support it iu a court of
law, and the consul could not expect the collector to take upon himself such a risk in
opposition to rules and principles by which the Crown is governed in matters of this
nature.
F. J. HAMEL.
July 11, 1862.
Acting on this advice, the Commissioners of the Customs acquaiDtetl
Mr. Edwards that there did not appear to be xmma-facie proof in the
statement of the Consul sufficient to justify the seizure of the vessel,
and directed him to apprise the consul accordingly.
This having been communicated to Mr. Dudley, we find him writing
to Mr. Adams on the 11th of July :
The Collector seems disposed to bold our Government to as strict a rule aii if we >verf
in a court of justice. We are re<iuired to furnish legal evidence — I take it this i^ hi>
meaning, though it is involved iu some obscurity — that is, that the onus Is upon u^
to prove and establish by legal evidence that this vessel is intended as a privateer, h'
this is to be taken as the answer of the government, it is hardly worth spending our
time in making further application to them. They show that their neutrality is a lucr'*
pretense, and that the United States cannot expect anything like impartiality and fair-
ness at their hands.
When the United States Government, through its acknowledged representatives, Nay
to the British government that it is satislied that a particular vessel, which is WiiK
built at a certain place in the kingdom by certain jiartios who are their own suhjeciH,
» British Appendix, vol. i, p. lt<H.
-Ibid., p. ie4.
•* British Appendix, vol. vi, p. l'^.
OPINIONS OF SIR ALEXANDER COCKBURX. 453
is iuteiided as a privateer for the rebel Government, it is the duty of that Government
to call upon the parties who are fitting out the vessel, to tell them what the charge is,
and require them to state for whom and what purpose she is being built, and if the
charge is admitted or shown to be true, to stop her sailing. Our Government has a
right, it seems to me, not only to expect but to require this much of another friendly
;:ovemment. And if there was any disposition to do right and act honestly, this much
at least would be accorded. I iucloso a description of the inside of this vessel.^
The pretension thus put forward by Mr. Dudley, in this and in his
former letter, that as soon as the agent of a foreign state dechires his
conviction that a vessel is being built for another belligerent, it becomes
the duty of the neutral government to call on the parties engaged in
building her to show that her destination is lawful, and if they do not
do so, to seize her, is one which cannot be admitted. It proceeds on an
entirely mistaken notioh of the powers of a Constitutional government in
a free state. As I have already pointed out, by the then existing law of
Great Britain, as by that of America, a vessel could only be seized with
a view to its being brought forthwith into a competent court, with a
view to its condemnation ; nor could the Government call on the parties
interested in the vesvsel to show that the purpose for which she was be-
ing built was a lawful one, till they had made out in a Court of Justice
at least a suflicient i}rima-f(me case to call upon these parties for an
answer.
But it is a very different thing to say that when persons capable of
giving evidence are expressly named, and sources of information are
l>ointed out from which the truth may be ascertained, the authorities
are to sit with their arms folded, and do nothing toward satisfying them-
selves whether a vessel is one the unlawful purpose of which it is their
duty to frustrate by seizure; and although the British government had
no power to insist compulsorily on explanations being given by ship-
builders as to the destination of a particular vessel, yet I can see no
reason why, in a case of suspicion, official application might not be
made to the builders to relieve the government from its embarrass-
ment by stating for whom the vessel was being built. If an answer
were given to such an application, its truth could generally be tested.
If all explanation were refused, or if that which was given turned out
on inquiry to be untrue, the evidence against the vessel would become
.strongly confirmed. It is true the builders of this vessel appear to have
been very shy of answering inquiries about her, but I do not find that
any inquiry of an official character was ever addressed to Messrs. Laird.
If it had been, the high character of these gentlemen would doubtless
have insured either a refusal to answer or a truthful answer. The former
would have helped materially to establish a case against the vessel, the
latter would have justified her immediate seizure.
But beside the omission to make any official inquiry of the builders,
no attempt appears to have been made to utilize the reference to per-
sons specified by Mr. Dudley, a subject to which I shall return presently.
Under these circumstances Mr. Adams hit on the happy idea of em-
ploying a solicitor to get up the case in a business-like manner ; and a
Mr. Squarey, an active solicitor of Liveri>ool, was retained for the prose-
cution. This gentleman, in spite of difficulties, soon succeeded in dis-
<'Overing evidence. ^' The difficulty we have had to contend with," writes
Mr. Dudley to Mr. Seward, " was to get direct proof. There were men
enough who knew about her, and who understood her character, but
they were not willing to testify, and in a preliminary proceeding like this
it was impossible to obtain process to compel them. Indeed, no one in
a hostile community like Liverpool, where the feeling and sentiment are
' United States Docnments, vol. i, p. 386.
454 ARBITRATION AT GENEVA.
agaiuBt US, would be a willing witness, especially if he resided there,
and was in any way dependent on the people of that place for a liveli-
hood.'' ' All this no doubt was true, but then it should not be forgotten
that exactly the same diflBculty, arising both from the unwillingness of
the witnesses to come forward and the absence of process to compel
them, stood in the way of the local authorities just as much as it did in
that of Mr. Dudley and Mr. Squarey.
On the 21st of July, however, Mr. Dudley with his solicitor waite<l
on Mr. Edwards with six depositions, one of which, that of a man named
Passmore, went directly to the point to show that the vessel was in-
tended for the Confederate service. It was shown by the aftidavit of an
articled clerk of Mr. Squarey that he had examined the Birkenhead
dock-mastei-'s book, and found an entry relating to a screw steamer, No.
290, the number of the vessel in question, of the i^egistered tonnage of
500 tons, from which entr^it ap])eared that the name of her master waj>
Matthew J. Butcher.
Then Passmore deposed as follows :
I, WUliam Passmore, of Birkenhead, in the eoiuity of Chester, mariner, make oatl;
and say as follows :
1. I am a seaman, and have served iis such on board Her Majesty's ship Terrible during
the Crimean war.
2. Having been informed that hands were wanted for a fighting- vessel built by
Messrs. Laird & (*o., of Birkenhead, I applied on Saturday, which was, I believe, tbf
2l8t day of June last, to Captain Butcher, who, I was informed, was engaging men for
the said vessel, for a berth on board her.
3. Captain Butcher asked me if I knew where the vessel was going, in reply to which
I told him I did not rightly understand about it. He then told me the vessel was going
out to the Government of the Confederate States of America. I asked him if thew
would be any fighting, to which he replied, yes, they were going to fight.for the Soatbern
Government. 1 told him I had been used to fighting- vessels, and showed him my
papers. I asked him to make me signalman on board the vessel, and, iu reply, he said
that no articles would be signed until the vessel got outside, but be would make me
signalman, if they required one, when they got outside.
4. The said Captain Butcher then engaged me as an able seaman on board the same
vessel, at the wages of £4 lOs. per month ; and it was arranged that I should join the
ship in Messrs. Laird Sl Co.'s yard on the following Monday. To enable me to get on
board, Captain Butcher gave me a password, the number ''290.^'
5. On the folio wiug Monday, which was, I believe, the 23d of June last, I joined the
said vessel in Messrs. Laird &. Co.'s yard at Birkenhead, and I remained by her till
Saturday last.
6. The said vessel is a screw-steamer of about 1,100 tons burthen, as far as I can judge.
and is built and fitted up as a fighting-ship in all respects : she has a magazine and
ehot and canister racks on deck, and is pierced for guns, the sockets for the bolts of
which are laid down. The said vessel has a large quantity of stores and provisiona on
board, and she is now lying at the Victoria Wharf in the great float at Birkenhead,
where she has taken in about 300 tons of coal.
7. There are now about thirty hands on board her, who have been engaged to go out
in her. Most of them are men who have previously served on board fighting-ships:
and one of them is a man who served on board the Confederate steamer Samter. It i**
well known by the hands on board that the vessel is going out as a privateer for th^
Confederate Government to act against the United States under a commission firomMr.
Jeft'erson Davis. Three of the crow are, I believe, engineers ; and there are also some
firemen on board.
8. Captain Butcher and another gentleman have been on board the ship almost every
day. It is reported on board the ship that Captain Butcher is to be the sailing-master,
and that the other gentleman, whose name, I believe, is Bullock, is to bo the fighting
captain.
9. To the best of my information and belief, the above-mentioned vessel, which 1
have heard is to be called the Florida, is being equipped and fitted ont, in order that
she may be employed in the service of the Confederate Government inAmerica, to cruise
^ United States Documents, vol. vi, p. 390.
OPINIONS OF SIR ALEXANDER COCKBURN. 455
and to commit hostilities agaiust the Governmeut and people of the United States of
America.
AVILLIAM PASSMORE.
Sworn before me at the custom-house, Liverpool, this Slst day of July, 1862.
S. PRICE EDWARDS,
Collector.^
Thus it appeared that the registered captain of the vessel, and who
was in charge of her, had actually engaged a seaman expressly for the
serviceofthe Confederate States. The other depositions went strongly
to show that Captain Bullock was the agent of the Confederate Govern-
loeut; that he had superintended the building: of the vessel; selecting
the timber to be used for her, and directing and giving orders to the
workmen; and, this being so, that he had proposed to one Brogan, an
apprentice in the ship-building yard of Messrs. Laird & Co., to enter as
carpenter's mate on board the vessel.
Now, if this evidence could be relied on, it established a strong case
against the vessel, and aliorded sufficient reason for seizing her. I by
no means go the length of saying that a public prosecutor is bound to
accept as trustworthy evidence the statements of witnesses furnished to
him by a party interested, till he has had an opportunity of satisfying
himself that the evidence is deserving of credit. But here the officer
whose business it was neither acted nor inquired. He made no inquiry
in the first instance of the workman in Messrs. Laird's yard, who ap-
pears to have been willing to speak. The important statement that it
had been represented to General Burgoyne, when visiting the yard, that
the vessel was being built for the Spanish government, while the Spanish
'minister in Loudon denied the fact, was not followed up. When the
evidence of Passmore and Brogan was brought before him, he took no
trouble to communicate with these witnesses with the view of satisfying
himself of the truth of their statements.
The blame of this in«action, however, attaches rather to those under
whose direction Mr. Edwards proceeded thsin to himself. He cannot,
I think, be justify blamed for having sought for and acted under the
directions of his superiors in London in an affair of so much impor-
tance.
The legal advisers of th» Customs Department of the Government did
not see in the evidence submitted to them sufficient to justify the seizure
of the ship. The assistant soliciter reports as follows :
In my opinion there is not sufficient evidence ia this case to justify the detention of
the vessel nuder the 59 (leorge III, c. 69. The only affidavit that professes to give
anything like positive evidence is that of the seaman Passmore*; but, assuming all he
states to be true, what occurred bet weeu the reputed master (Butcher) and nimself
Avould not warrant a detention under section 6, nor support an information for the pen-
alty nnder that section. Nor do I think, however probable it may seem that the ves-
sel is fitted out for the military operations mentioned, that sufficient evidence has been
adduced to entitle the anplicauts to the interference of the Collector of Customs at Liv-
erpool. The only justifiable grounds of seizure under section 7 of the act would be the
production of such evidence of the fact as would support an indictment for the misde-
meanor nnder that section.
J. O'DOWD.2
Customs, Juhj 22, 1862.
This report of the assistant solicitor was upheld by his principal :
I entirely concur with Mr. 0*Dowd in opinion that there is not sufficient evidence to
-^^arrant the seiznre or detention of the ship by the officers of customs. There appears
^Appendix to British Case, vol. i, p. 189.
* Appendix to United States Case, vol. i, p. 192.
456 ARBITRATION AT GENEVA.
to be some evidence of enlistment of individualH, and if that were .sufficient to satisfy
a court, they would be liable to pecuniary penalties, for security of which, if recovered,
the customs might detain the ship until those penalties were satisfied or good bail given :
but there is not evidence enough of enli^tmeut to call upon the cnstoms to prosecute.
The United States (.'onsiil or any other person may do so at their own risk, if they
see lit.
F. J. HAMEL.
Ji'LY 22, 1802.
The commissioners adopted the views of their advisers, and on the
22d of July reported to the Lords of the Treasury accordingly, hut
accompanied their report with the very proper suggestion that should
thjeir lordships entertain any doubt upon the subject, the opinion of the
Law-Officers should be taken. The papers were forwarded by the Treas-
ury to the foreign office without a moment's delay, in order that the
opinion of Lord Russell might be taken, as appears from a note from
the secretary of the treasury to the under secretary of state for foreign
affairs :
Tkeasiry, July 22, \%2.
My Deak Mk. Layari) : As the coniniuuication may be considered pressing, I semi
it to you uuoflicially to save time. Perhaps you will asoertain from Lord Rassell
whether it is his wish that wo should take the opinion of thelaw-ofllcers as to thecal'
of this vcs8el. It is stated that slie is i^early ready for sea.
Sincerely voars,
(JEO. A. HAMILTON.-
The depositions of Passmore and the others wore transmitted also by
Mr. Adams, to Earl Russell, with the accompanying note :
LlXiATIOX OF THE UNITED STATES,
London, July 22, ISOi. •
My Lord: I have the honor to transmit copies of six depositions taken atLiveq>ool.
tending to establish the character and destination of the vessel lo which I called your
lordship's attention in my note of the 23d of June last.
The originals of these papers have already been submitted to the collector of tlio
customs at that port, in accordance w^ith the suggestions made in your lordship^s note
to me of the 4tli of July, as the basis of an application to him to act under the powers
conferred by the enlistment act. But I feel it to be my duty further to communicate the
facts as there allege<l to Her Majesty's government, and to request that such farther
proceedings may be had as may carry into full effect the determination which I donbt
not it ever entertains to prevent, by aU lawful means, the tittiqg out of hostile expe-
ditions against the government of a country with which it is at peace.
I avail i&c '
CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS.
Tiie papers were snbmitted to the law-officers oil the 23d, with a re-
quest for their answer at their earliest convenience.
In the mean time Mr. Hquarey had procured two other important
depositions : the one that of a ship's carpenter, named Roberts, who
stated that he had been engaged as carpenter's mate on board this ves-
sel, and had seen Captain Butcher by appointment, and that Captain
Butcher had spoken to the boatswain about him ; and that it wai? gen-
erally understood on board of the vessel that she was going to Nassaa
for the southern government ;* the other an affidavit of Robert John
Taylor, which was still more to the purpose. This man, an Englishman
by birth, but living at Mobile, had been captured in att-empting to run
the blockade, and was now desirous of talking service, whereby to get
back to Mobile. The material part of his statement was as follows :
Mr. Rickarby, of Liverpool, a brother of the owner, at Mobile, of the vessel in which
I was captured when attempting to run the blockade, gave me instructions to go t»
> Appendix to United States Case, vol. i, p. 193.
=2 Ibid., p. 188.
^ Appendix to British Case, vol. i, p. 193.
^ British Appendix, vol, i, p. 159.
OPINIONS OF SIR ALEXANDER COCKBURN. 457
Captiiiii Biitclior, at Laird's yard, Birkenhead. I had previously called 'ou Mr. Rick-
urby, and told hioi that I wanted to go South, as the Northerners had robbed me of
luy clothes when I was captured, and I wanted to have satisfaction.
I lirst saw Captain Butcher at one of Mr. Laird's offices last Thursday fortnight,
(namely, the 3d of July last.) I told him that I had been sent by Mr. Rickarby, and
asked him if he were the captain of the vessel which was lying in the dock. I told
him that I was one of the men that had been captured in one of Mr. Rickarby's vessels,
and that I wanted to get South in order to have retaliation of the Northerners for rob-
bing me of my clothes. Ho said that if I went with him in his vessel I should very
shortly have that opportunity.
Captain Butcher asked me at the interview if I was well acquainted with the Gulf
ports, and I told him I was. I asked him what port he was going to, and he replied
that he could not tell me then, but that there would be an agreement made before we
left for sea. I inquired as to the rate of wages, and I was to got £4 lOs. per mouth,
payable weekly.
I then in<iuired if I might consider myself engaged, and he replied, ye^, and that I
might go on board the next day, which I accordingly did ; and I have been working
ou board up to last Saturday night. ^
These depositions were proi)erl5' forwarded by ^h\ Squarey to Mr.
(Gardner, the secretary to the board of customs, together with an opin-
ion which had been given by Mr., now Sir Robert, Collier, on the whole
case, and which was in these terms :
I have perused the above affidavits, and I am of opinion that the collector of customs
would be justified in detaining the vessel. Indeed, I should think it his duty to de-
tain her ; and that if, after the application which has been made to him, supported by
the evidence which has been laid before me, he allows the vessel to leave Liverpool,
he will .incur a heavy responsibility — a responsibility of which the board of customs,
under whose directions he appears to be acting, must take their share.
It appears difficult to make out a stronger case of infringement of the foreign-enlist-
ment act, which, if not enforced ou this occasion, is little better than a dead Tetter.
It well deserves consideration whether, if the vessel be allowed to escape, the Fed-
eral Government would not have serious grounds of remonstrance.
R. r. COLLIER.-
Temple, July 23, 1862.
Notwithstanding this additional evidence, and the decided opinion of
!Mr. Collier, strange to say, the assistant solicitor to the customs re-
uiained unshaken in his opinion. He reports on the 23d :
I have read the additional evidence, and I do not think that it materially strengthens
the case of the applicants. As regards the opinion of Mr. Collier, I cannot concur in
li is views; but, adverting to the high character which he bears in his profession, I
Mubmit that the board might act Judiciously in recommending the lords of the treasury
to take the opinion of the law-officers of tlie Crown.
J. O'DOWD.^
JiXY 23, 1862.
These papers were immediately submitted to the law-officers.
On the 25th of July came a further affidavit from Mr. Squarey, that
of a man named Eedden, who deposed as follows :
I am a seaman, and have followed the sea for fifteen years. I have been boatswain
ou board both steamers and sailing-vessels, and belong to the naval reserve.
About six weeks ago I was engaged by Captain Butcher, (with whom I had previ-
ously sailed,) as boatswain on boanl a vessel then in Messrs. Laird & Co.'s ship-building
yard, but now lying in the Birkenhead float, and known by the name of No. 290. The
Bald Captain Butcher offered me £10 per month, and said an agreement should be
si^ed when we got outside. He told me that we should have plenty of money when
vee got homo, as wo were going to the Southern States on a specnlation to try and get
some.
The crew now on board the said vessel consists of about fortj' men, but I believe that
she will take to sea abont one hundred men, all told. It is generally understood on board
that she will clear for Nassau, but not make that port. The said vessel has all her
stores and coals on board ready for sea. She is fitted in all respects as a man-of-war,
to carry six broadside-guns and four pivots, bdt has no guns or ammunition on board
^ British Appendix, p. 196.
' Ibid.
* British Appendix, vol. i, p. 197.
458 ARBITRATION' AT GEXEVA.
as yet. The rules ou board are similar to those in use on a mau-of-war, and tiit! men
are not allowed to siug as they do on a merchantman. The call is Ui»ed ou boanl.
The said vessel is of about 1,100 tons burthen.
I know Captain Bullock. He has been superintending the building of tbe said v^>«^l
in Messrs. Laird Sl Co.'s yard, and is, I believe, to take charge of the vessel wheu wi-
get outside.
It is generally understood on board the said vessel that she belongs to the conffd-
erate government.
HENRY REDDEX.
Nevt»rtbeless, Mr. O'Dowd still cliugs to his opinion with the perti
nacity with which men sometimes persist in adhering to an opiniou
once formed. He says :
I submit a reference to my former reports, to the opinions expressed in which I feel stil^
bound to adhere. So far from giving additional force to the application, the affidavit
of Henry Redden appears to me to weaken it, as, after the lapse of several days since the
date of the former affidavits, the applicants are confessedly unable to make out a better
justification for detaining the vessel. It is, no doubt, difficult to procure satisfkctory
evidence in such a case ; but, in the absence of at least a clear prima-facie case, there
cannot exist those grounds for detaining the vessel which the foreign-enlistment act
contemplates.
J. O'DOWD.
CcsTOMS, July 25, 1862.
There was, however, abundant evidence to make out a primorfaclr
case, and of that opinion were the hiw-oflicers of the Crown, who, on the
29th of July, reported as follows :
In our opinion, the evidence of the witnesses who have made depositions, (we allnde
particularly to William Passmore, Edward Roberts, Robert John Taylor, and Henry Red-
den,) coupled with the character and structure of the vessel, makes it reasonably clear
that such vessel is intended for warlike use against citizens of the United States and
in the interest of the (so-calle<l) Confederate States. It is not, and cannot, be denied
that the vessel is constructed and adapted as a vessel of war, being pierced for ^an&.
the sockets for the bolt^ of which, Passmore states, are already laid down, and baring a
magazine, and shot and canister racks on the deck, and a certain number of canisters be-
ing actually on board. It is also stated in the report of the commissioners of customs
of July 1st that Messrs. Laird, the builders, do not deny that the vessel has been bnilt
for some '^foreign government," although they maintain, apparently, a strict reserve
as to her actual destination, and as to the ^* foreign government'' in particular for
whose service she is intend )d. We do not overlook the facts that neither guns nor
ammunition have as yet been shipped ; that the cargo, (though of the nature of naval
stores in connection with war-steamers,) may yet be classed as a mercantile cargo ; and
that the crew do not appear to have been, in terms and form at least, recruited or en-
rolled as a military crew. It is to be expected that great stress will be laid upon th^e
circumstances by the owners and others who may oppose the condemnation of the
vessel if seized hy the officers of the customs ; and an argument may bo raised m to
the proper construction of the words which occur in the seventh section of the foreign-
enlistment act, '' equip, furnish, fit out, or arm," which words, it may be suggested,
point only to the rendering a vessel, whatever may be the character of its structure,
presently fit to engage in hostilities. We think, however, that such a narrow coo-
structiou ought not to be adopted ; and, if allowed, would fritter away the act, and
give impunity to open and flagrant violations of its provisions. We, therefore, recom-
mend that without loss of time the vessel be seized by the proper authorities, afttr
which an opportunity will be afforded to those interested previous to condemnauou to
alter the facts, if it may be, and to show an innocent destination of the ship. In the
absence of any such countervailing case it appears to us that the vessel, cargo, and
stores may be properly condemned. ^
Unfortunately, the report of the law-oflScers came too late. Before
the necessary orders to seize the vessel could be issued, a telegraphic
message from Liverpool announced that she had gone out of dock the
night before, (the 28th,) and had left the port that morning, (the 29th.;
She left under the pretense of making a trial trip, but stood out to sea,
and never returned.
' British Appendix, vol. i, p. 193.
« Ibid., p. 199.
"Ibid., p. 201.
OPINIONS OF SIK ALEXANDER COCKUrRN. 459
Upon those facts it appears to me impossible to sa.v that in respect of
this vessel there was not an absence of " due diligence " on the part of
the British authorities. The delay which occurred in the furnishing of
the report of the law-officers is no doubt to be attributed to the illness
of the Queen's advocate, referred to in the case of the United States —
an illness unhappily aifecting his mental faculties, and which necessi-
tated his entire withdrawal from public life. As senior in standing of
the law-officers, the papers would be sent to him in the first instance.
From a letter from Mr. Adams to Mr. Seward, of the 1st of August,
1S62, it appears that, in the interview had by the former with Lord
Kussell, on the previous day. Lord Eussell had explained to him that a
delay in determining on the course to be taken with respect to the Ala-
bama had most unexpectedly been caused by the sudden development
of a malady of the Queen's advocate. Sir John Harding, totally incapaci-
tating him for the transaction of business, and that this had made it
necessary to call in other parties, whose opinion had been at last given
for the detention of the gun-boat.* Upon this, it is observed in the
argument of the United States, that no opinion of the law-officers was
signed by the Queen's advocate after the 30th of June, whence, it is
said, the United States infer that that officer << was unable to attend to
his duties as early as that date," and, it is added with an ungenerous
«neer, " they infer that it was not necessary to call in new parties, but
to call upon the old." '^ The unworthy insinuation here meant to be
conveyed is that Lord Kussell stated that which was untrue — an insin-
uation* which will be treated as it deserves by every one who knows him.
It is obvious that Mr. Adams must, in this' particular, have misunder-
stood his lordship. The accompanying explanation of the circumstances
attending the delay in the delivery of the opinion of the law-officers on
the occasion in question has been handed to the tribunal by Sir Roun-
dell Palmer, and is beyond doubt the true explanation :
- Sir John Harding was ill from the latter part of June, 1862, and did not, after that
time, attend to government businesH. It was not, however, known, till some weeks
afterward, that he was unlikely to recover ; nor did the disorder undergo, till the end
of July, such a development as to make the government aware that the case was one
of permanent mental alienation.
Althoogh, when a law-officer was ill, he would not be troubled with ordinary busi-
ness, it was quite consistent with probability and experience that, in a case of more
than usual importance, it would be desired, if possiole, to obtain the benefit of his
opinion. Under such circumstances, the papers would naturaUy be sent to his private
house ; and if this was done, and if lie was unable to attend to them, some delay would
necessarily take place before the impossibility of his attending to them was known.
Lord Russell told Mr. Adams (3lBt July, 18(52,) that some delay had, in fact, occurred
with respect to the Alabama, in consequence of Sir John Harding's illness. He could
not have made the statement, if the fact were not really so ; because, whatever the
fact was, it must have been, at the time, known to him. The very circumstance, that
8ir J. Harding had not already advised unon the case in its earlier stage, might be a
reason why it should be wished to obtain nis opinion.
Sir J. Harding and his wife are both (some years since) dead ; so are Sir W. Ather-
ton (the then attorney-general) and his wife ; no information, therefore, as to the cir-
<*umst<ances which may have caused delay, with respect to the delivery at their private
houses, or the transmission and consideration of any papers on this subject, can now
be obtained from them.
The then solicitor-general was Sir R. Palmer, who is able to state positively that the
first time he saw or heard of the papers sent to the law-officers (t. e., all three law-
officers) on Uie 23d and 25th or 26tn of July, was on the evening of Monday the 28th of
Jaly, when he was summoned by the attorney-general. Sir W. Athertou, to consider
them in consultation, and when the advice to be given to the government was agreed
upon. Sir R. Palmer thinks it his dutj' to add, that no government ever had a more
diligent, conscientious, and laborious servant than Sir W. Atherton ; and that it is in
> British Appendix, vol. i, p. 201.
* United States Documents, vol. vi, p. 414.
4C0 AKI5ITRAT10X AT (iEXEVA.
the last degree uulikely tluit lio would have been guilty of any negligence or imiuM'iv
sjiry delay in the consideration of papers of such importance.
As I think that a government, in the habit, according to its consti-
tutional practice, of consulting its legal advisers before taking actioi»
on matters of importance, would be entitled to reasonable time for doinir
so on such an occasion as this, and would not be liable for delay oooa
sioned by an unforeseen accident, I should not have been prepared to
say, had the delay in the report of the law-officers thus arising been the
sole cause of the delay in ordering the seizure of this vessel, that a de
lay arising from such an accident could jiroperlybe attributed to a want
of "due diligence'' in the government. The want of "due diligence^
on which my judgment in respect of the Alabama rests, is to be found
further back. I entirely agree with Sir lioberfc Collier that it was the
duty of the collector of customs at Liverpool, as early as the 22d of July,
to detain this vessel. When for his better guidance and protection the
<»ollector sought the directions of his superiors — for which I can scarcely
blame him, although the case appeared clear enough — it became, in my
opinion, the duty of the commissioners of customs at once to direct the
seizure to be made. Misled by advice which they ought to have re-
jected as palpably erroneous, they unfortunately refused to cause the
vessel to be seized. The matter properly belonged to their department:
it was competent to them to act independently of any other department
of the state ; and the case, as it seems to me, was too clear to require
the opinion of the law-officers, although, after the decision of the com-
missioners, it might well be deemed proper on the part of the heads of
the government to consult the law-officers before acting in opposition
to it.
At the same .time, I must not be understood as holding that a mei'C
error in judgment amounts to negligence. Questions present themselves
in the business of life so difficult of decision that the wisest and the
ablest men are apt to err in respect of them. Ilumanum est errare. In
such cases the question must always be one of degree. But here I can
not help thinking that the mistake was such as to carry with it legal
responsibility as its consequence. I readily admit that, in a ciuse
of doubt, a public department may properly act on the advice of it^
constitutional advisers, and would not be liable to the imputation ot
negligence if that advice should turn out to be unsound. But here I
think there was no room for doubt. My judgment is founded on the
view that the course to be taken was plain and unmistakable, but un-
fortunately was not pursued ; and that there was consequently an ab-
sence of the due diligence which ought to h.ive been exercised.
The vessel having thus escaped through want of due diligence in that
department of the government to which it specially appertained to
seize her, the entire British government, and through them the British
people, become, as it appears to me, by necessary consequence, involve*!
in a common liability. But how far, considering the faot that, while
the British government was desirous of doing its duty in respect of this
vessel, the escape of it was, in the event, practically speaking, the result
of an unfortunate and unforeseen accident, the tribunal should award
to the United States damages to the full extent demanded, as though
the result had arisen from negligence alone, is a question which may
deserve serious consideration.
But it belongs rather to a different department of our labors, and I
will reserve it till we enter thereupon.
\ft.r w.n, i.x But, I am sorry to say, the charge of want of dUigeuce
.rvooi. |j^ respect of this vessel does not stop with the fact of ber
escape.
OPINIONS OF SIK ALEXANDER COCKBURN. 461
On the luorniug of the 30tU of July, a letter of the 29tb, from Mr.
8quare.y's lirm, informed the commissiouers of customs that the vessel
had come out of dock the uight before, and had steamed down the river
between ten and eleven that morning, as the writers had reason to be-
lieve, on her way to Queenstown.^ At that time, indeed, the commis-
sioners of customs were under the belief that there were not sufficient
grounds for detaining the vessel. It was, therefore, not to be expected,
tliat on being informed she had left the Mersey and gone to Queenstown,
tlicy should take any steps to seize her at the latter place. But on the
pre<;eding day, the 29th, the opinion of the law-officers had been given
that the vessel should be seized. Had that opinion been at once commu-
nicated to the customs, as the emergency of the case required, and the
commissiouers had themselves immediately telegraphed to the collector at
Liverpool, as it would have been their dut^^ to do,desiring him to ascertain
where the ship was, and if possible to follow and seize her, there would
still have been an opportunity of stopping her; for it appears that she
lirst profjceded to Moelfra Bay, on the Welsh coast, a place about fifty
miles from Liverpool, and remained cruising off the coast On the
afternoon of the 30th the tug Hercules left the Mersey, with thirty or
forty men, who were to form part of the ship's crew, and found her in
Moelfra Bay, where the two vessels lay alongside one another till mid-
night, and the war-steamer remained till 3 in the morning of the 31st.
On the morning of the 30th, prior to the Hercules leaving the river, the
consul called in ])ersou upon the collector and informed him that the
tug was then in port, having returned from the Alabama the evening
before ; that she reported that the Alabama was cruising off Point Lynas,
and that she (the tug) was then taking on board men and equipments to
*• convey down to the gun-boat.'"
The collector sent the surveyor to the tug, and he reported that he
found a considerable number of persons on deck, <^ some of whom admit-
ted that they were a portion of the crew and were going to join the gun-
lM>at." He also informed the collector that it was said she had cruised
off Point Lynas the night before. '
It is obvious that if a telegraphic communication had been sent to the
collector at Liverpool, as, looking to the urgency of the case, it should
have been, he might, by following the Hercules, have found the steamer
in Moelfra Bay ; and though in these waters, as being beyond his juris-
diction, he would have had no authority to seize her, he might have
called on the collector of customs at Beaumaris, a place eight miles off,
within whose jurisdiction she was, to take the necessary steps for doing
so. Knowing that she was oft' that part of the Welsh coast, he might also
have telegraphed from Liverpool, before leaving to follow the Hercules,
to the collector at Beaumaris to look out for the vessel, and, if possible,
to seize her.
Unfortunately, the report of the law-officers, though sent in on the
20th, was not communicated to the commissioners of customs till the
afternoon of the 31st, by which time the vessel was beyond the reach of
British jurisdiction. It followed the ordinary routine of official commu-
uicatiou — wa« sent in to the foreign office, thence to the treasury, and
thence to the department of the customs.^
It seems to me that the United States Government have also reason to
complain of the inactivity of the collector at this conjuncture in another
^ Britisli Appendix, vol. 1, p. 2Ui).
2 Ibid., p. 205.
=*Ibid., p. 201.
* Ibid., p. 205.
462 ARBITRATION AT GENEVA.
particular. When, in addition to the evidence which had passed tUrongh
his hands, the collector found that the vessel, having gone out ostensi-
bly on a trial trip, did not return, but was lying off the Welsh coast,
and that, instead of having shipped her crew at Liverpool, she was hav-
ing them brought off to her by the Hercules, all doubt as to the real
character and destination of the ship should have been at an end ; and
as he might fairly presume that the men had a knowledge of the service
on which they were entering, he ought not to have allowed the Hercales
to leave, (unless for the purpose of finding and seizing the war-steamer,)
seeing that, under the 6th section of the foreign-enlistment act, he had
power to seize the tug, as being about to take off to the steamer persons
who had unlawfully enlisted as part of her crew.
I must say I think the complaint of the United States of a want of
official activity at such a conjuncture by no means without foundation.
There is little more to be said on the subject of the Alabama. She
left England without her guns or munitions of war of any
kind. She received her armament, as we now know, off
Terceira, it having been conveyed to her in two vessels called the
Bahama and Agrippina, but without any knowledge whatever on the
part of the authorities that those vessels were leaving Liverpool for the
purpose. What is stated in the British counter case on this head ap-
pears to me strictly accurate :
The Alabama sailed from England 'wholly unarmed, and with a crew hired to work
the ship, and not enlisted for the confederate service. She received her armament at
a distance of more than 1,000 miles from England, and was armed for war, not within
the Queen's dominions, but either in Portuguese waters or on the high seas. The guns
and ammunition, which were put on board of her off Terceira, had been procaredancl
exported from England in an ordinary merchant-st'eamer, which loaded them ascaq?>
and sailed with a regular clearance for Nassau. The cleai^nce and departure of tbi^
Hteamer presente<l, so far as Her Majesty's government is aware, no circumstance <ii$-
tinguishiug her from ordinary blockade-runners. No information was ever given or
representation made to the government as to this ship or her cargo before she left
British waters ; nor does it appear that the errand on which she was employed wa*
known to or suspected by the officials of the United States. But, even had a
suspicion existed that her cargo was exported with the intention that it should lie
used, either in the Confederate States or elsewhere, in arming a vessel which bad been
unlawfully fitted in England for warlike employment, this would not have made itth«
duty of the officers of customs to detain her, or have empowere<l them to do so. Siifb
a transaction is not a breach of English law ; nor is it one which the British gorero-
ment was under any obligation to prevent. Whether the cargo was sent from the same
port as the ship, or from a different port, and by the same or different persons, is mani-
festly immaterial for this purpose. The distinction is plainly not such as to create in
the one case a duty which would not arise in the other. ^
The armameut was, however, prepared in England, and it was part
of the same scheme that the vessel having been "equipped," that is to
say prepared to receive her armament in England, shoald have her ar-
mament and crew sent out and put on board out of the Queen's domin-
ions, for the purpose of immediate warfare. It is fairly open to conten-
tion that under such circumstances the whole should be reganled as oue
armed hostile expedition issuing from a British port, or, at all events,
that the ulterior purpose of arming, though out of British jurisdiction*
gives to such an equipment of the vessel within the jurisdiction tbe
character of an equipment with intent to carry on war.
On the whole, 1 concur with the rest of the tribunal in thinking that
in respect of this vessel the liability of Great Britain, in respect of want
of due diligence, is established by the facts.
It would be unnecessary to pursue the history of the Alabama any
further, were it not that, in respect of her after-proceedings, impnta
' British Counter Case, p. 87.
OPINIONS OF SIR ALEXANDER COCKBURN. 463
tioiis of insincere nentrality are cast upon British authorities. As to
these it becomes necessary to say a word.
The first port she put into after leaving Liverpool was at Martinique.
The Agrippina, with a cargo of coal specially destined for
the Alabama^ was there by arrangement awaiting her ar- ^t Mart.mque.
rival. What further passed is thus stated in the argument of the United
States:*
The Agrippina loft port upon the order of Captain Sammes to get nnder way forth-
with and proceed to a new place of rendezvous, aa "it would not do for him to think of
coaling in Martinique under tne drcumstanccH.^^ Martinique was under the jurisdiction
of the French government and not under that of Her M^esty.
The part of this passage printed in italics is taken from the journal of
Captain Semmes, set out in the sixth volume of tlie United States Ap-
l>endix, p. 491.
The effect of this statement is to convey the impression that Captain
Semmes found it would not do for him to coal at Martinique on ac-
count of the strictness of the French authorities, as compared with the
lax neutrality of ports within Her Majesty's jurisdiction. I deeply and
sincerely regret to find myself bound to denounce this representation as
altogether disingenuous. It was the fear of the Unit-ed States cruisers^
not apprehension of French authorities, which led Captain Semmes to
seek a safer place for coaling. His journal shall speak for itself:
After descrihing his cruise and captures nntil October 30, he continnes, (p. 492:)
'* The engineer having now reported to me that we had no more than about four days of
fuel on board, I resolved to withdraw from the American coast, run down into the West
Indies to meet my coal-ship, and renew my supply. Being uncertain, in the commence-
ment of my career, as to the reception I should meet with in neutral ports, and fear-
ing that I might have difficulty in procuring coul in the market, I had arranged with
inj' ever-attentive co-laborer, Captain Bullock, when we parted off Terceira, to have a
Hupply-ship sent out to me from time to time, as I should indicate to him in the ren-
dezvous. The island of Martinique was to be the iirst rendezvous, and it was thither
accordingly that we were now bound. This resolution was taken on the 30th of Octo-
ber.''
After describing several other captures, and his arrival at Martinique, he continues,
Cp. 514;)
^'I found here at her anchors, as I ha<l expected, my coal-ship the Agrippina. She
bad been lying here eight days. Her master, an old Scutcliman, who, like most old
Hailors, was fond of his grog, had been quite indiscreet, as I soon learned, in talking
alKiut his ship and her movements^ Instead of pretending to have come in for water
or repairs, or to hunt a market, or for something of the kind, he had frequently, when
' half seas over,' in the coffee-houses on shore, boasted of his connection with the Ala-
bama, and told his brother tars that that ship might be daily looked for. Eight days
were a sufficient space of time for these conversations to be repeated in the neighboring
islands; and as I knew that the enemy had several cruisers in the West Indies, I was
only surprised that some one of them had not looked in upon the Agrippina before. It
would not do for me to think of coaling in Martinique, under the circumstances, and so I
oitlered my coal-ship to get under way forthwith, and proceed to a new rendezvous — a
nniall island on the Spanish main, where, in due time, we will rejoin her. I had the
.satisfaction of seeing her get a good offing before nightfall, and knew that she was
safe.'*
The foregoing: extract speaks for itself. What makes the matter still
worse is that, at the time this passage in the United States argument
was penned, a letter from the British consul at Martinique to Earl
Russell had been published in the British Appendix, from which it
appears that the consul actually remonstrated with the master of the
Agrippina, and called the attention of the French governor to the trans-
action, as an improper one, on which the governor declared his intention
of allowing the same facilities to the Alabama as he had previously af-
forded to the Sumter.
1 Pa^ 202.
-United States Documents, vol. vi, p. 490»
464 ARI5ITKATIOX AT GENEVA.
The letter is as follows :
8aim' PiEiiUE, Xovvmber 2G, le(V2.
My Lord : I have the honor to report to your lordship that the confederate steamer
Alabama, Captain Scmnies, hati visited this island.
The following are the circumstances in connection with the arrival and departure of
this noted cruiser :
I ha<l to proceed to Fort de France on the 12th instant on official business with an
English ship lying there, and, on my arrival, I heard that an English bark, the Agrip-
pina, master McQueen, had entered the harbor on the previous evening with a cargo of
coals, shipped at Cardiff and cleared from the cnstom'-house there, for Jamaica; that to
explain his presence at Fort de France, the master had stated that he was to receive iD-
structions from me. I was, moreover, informed that it was reported in town that the
coals on lioard of this vessel were destined for the Alabama.
I immediately sent for the master and acquainted him with what I had heard; at
the same time expressing my surprise and displeasure at his having presumed to connect
my name with such a matter. Reassured me positively that these reports were without
any foundation whatever ; that he had merely said that, when about to leave England,
he had received from his owners a telegram desiring him to call at Martinique, wher^
he would find a letter of further instructions addressed to my care.
On informing him that I had received no such letter, he rex)lied it would, no doubt,
arrive by the next mail.
The harbor regulations not allowing vessels to remain over three days without pay-
ing port-charges. I gave him, at his request, and on the faith of his assurances, a draught
of a letter to ue addressed to the authorities to obtain permission to await the arrival
of the steamer, due on the I8th of November, without expense. This demand, I may
here observe, was not granted ultimatelv.
On the same afternoon, having heard from the captain of the port that the pilot, who
had been on board of the Agrippina, had reported to him that the master had told
another British captain, who had boarded the ship in the offing, in his presence, that
his cargo was for the Alabama, I at once sent for both the master and the pilot, hot
they all agreed that the statements the master of the Agrippina had made was to thr
ett'ect merely that he had, on a previous voyage, taken stores to the Alabama. lex-
pressed to him my opinion that he had acted most improperly on that occasion, and I
warned him of the consec^uences that might follow the repetition of any such illej^al
proceedings. No longer feeling assured of the veracity of his protestations, and hear-
ing that a sloo[) was about to sail for Saint Vincent, I addressed a letter to the senior of-
licer of the station, in the hope that it might find him there, and procure for me the
benefit of his advice.
On my return to Saint Pierre, finding everywhere the same rumors afloat conceminj;
the Agrippina, I thought it proper to write to the master to repeat the observations I
had already made to him verbally. Herewith I have the honor to inclose copies of both
these letters.
I was obliged to return to Fort de France the next day to end the inquiry, began the
previous day, with regard to another vessel, and I .was about leaving again when the
master of the Agrippina came to tell me he had a confidential commnnication to make.
I answered that I would not refuse to hear any statement he might wish to make, but
that I reserved to myself complete freedom ot action as to the course I should adopt
atlterward, particularly if the communication had reference to the report in circnlattou
concerning his vessel. He still persisted in making a statement to the effect that hin
cargo was, in truth, for a steamer that he had expected to find at Fort de IrYance, and
which he had reason to believe was a confederate cruiser.
I again pointed out the illegality of such a line of conduct, but the sequel showed
that my remonstrances proved of no avil.
I next deemed it proper to acquaint his excellency the governor of what I had jii>t
learned. He did not seem much surprised, and observed that, if the Alabama came iut^*
port, he would act exactly as he had done on a former occasion, in the case of th*-
Sumter, when the French government had altogether approved of the measures he had
taken in regard to that vessel.
Nothing new occurred until the morning of the 18th instant, when a black, raki!»h-
looking screw-steamer was seen approaching the land, steering for Fort de France. A"
she passed close before this town, she showed a British blue ensign and pennaut<, but
no one was deceived by the character she had thus assumed. She was at once pui
down as the Alabama, and such in effect she proved to be.
On his arrival at Fort de France, Captain Semmcs sent a message to the govenif»r
to request permission to land fifty-three prisoners whom he had on boanl. On the if-
turn of the officer they were landed and sent to the United St4ites consul at this ]M>rt. < *h
the same afternoon the Agrippina, whose master had gone on board of the Alabama,
as soon as she came in sight, got under weigh, having taken a clearance for Deraeraw
The Alabama appeared to be still well provided with fuel, and her commander Mid
that he would leave during the night. But he was still at anchor on the morning of th«^
OPINIONS OF SIR ALEXANDER COCKBURN. 465
19th, when, about 7 a. m., a Federal war-steamer snddenly made her appoaraiico, which
proved to bo the Sail Jacinto, Captain Ronckendoif, from Barbados and Trinidad, on a
cruise in search of the Alabama. The latter hoisted the confederate flag, on perceiving
the Federal vessel, whose commander declined to receive the government pilot; or
enter the harbor on learning that, in such case, he would have to remain in port twenty-
four hours after the departure of his adversary. He was then informed, by a letter
from the governor, that he must remain at' a distance of three miles from the
nearest land, and that any attempt to violate the neutrality of the port would be re-
pressed by force of arms, if necessary.
S:i >rbly afcerwriPil a s u ill Frjuch war-stoamar that was in the port was sent out
and took up a ]>o3ition, with steam up and her men at their quarters, between the
rival ships. At the same time, the forts were manned, and twenty rounds of ammuni>
tion were served out for each gnu bearing seaward ; the officers in charge of those at
the mouth of the bay having orders to maintain the Sau Jacinto at the prescribed dis-
tance from the land, and fire into whichev'^er vessel might become the assailant.
Meanwhile, the greatest anxiety prevailed on shore ; many bearing in mind the
vagaries of the Federal cruisers elsewhere, and recollecting what had occurred a year
previously to the commander of the Iro;|uois, when the Sumter made her escape, were
of opinion that the San Jacinto would have attempted, at all risks, to run down the
Alabama where she lay. No such occurrence, fortunately, took place.
Meanwhile, the Alabama remained perfectly still, her crew being employed in paint-
ing and repairing the masts and rigirings. Her captain, it seem^, had at 6rst taken
the Siin Jacinto for another ves<»el of the force of his own, and he sent a message to
the governor to say that intending to go out to engage her, he in consequence requested
his €»xcellency to permit him to deposit, at the public treasury, a sum of money,
about £12,000 sterling, which he had on board;' this request could not be granted, and
arrangements were being made with a merchant who was to receive it at a certain per-
centage, when, having recognized the San Jacinto, CiCptain Sammes sent word that he
would keep the money on board, having made up his mind to run out that same
night.
He did so, in effect, and accomplished his design so successfully that his adversary
did n(»t even perceive his flight ; nor was it until after remaining thirty-six hours before
Fort de France after the Alabama had left that the cax)tain of the San Jacinto could
believe that she had really got away.
The movements of the Alabama had been well calculated.
Shortly before sunset a boat had conveyed to the San Jacinto one of the masters who
had been lately released from the Alabama, and who was sent by the United States
consul to arrange for the signals to be made from an American schooner anchored near
the Alabama, in case the latter should attempt to leave during the night.
Suspecting their intentions, Captain Semmes sent word to the captain of the port for
a pilot, who came off forthwith, and at dusk he got under weigh, flrst running toward
the inner port, and when out of sight of the schooner, altering his course so as t^ run
out on the south side of the bay. The pilot left him, already, nearly half an hour,
when the master of the schooner, ou his return from the San Jacinto, finding the Ala-
bama had gone, sent up three rockets in the direction which his crew told him she had
takt^n.
The San Jacinto, under all steam, ran to the south side of the bay, and not meeting the
Alabama, she having already passed out, Captain Ronckendoff remained all night oft
the entry to the bay, within which he placed his armed boats in a line, to prevent all
egress. So certain was he of the result of these measures that, as I have already said,
he was with difficulty brought to believe the escape of his adversary.^
It is thas abundantly clear that it was not because Martinique was
not within British jurisdiction that Captain Semmes did not coal there.
Having thus left the port on the evening of the 19th, on the afternoon
of the next day the Alabama joined the.Agrippina, and the two ran to-
gether to the appointed place of anchorage, Blanquilla, described by
Captain Semmes as ^' one of those little coral islands that skirt the South
American coast, not yet fully adapted to the habitation of man.' * There
the Alabama took in a supply of coal, after which the Agrippina, which
bad still another supply of coal on board, was sent to the Areas, small
islands oif the coast of Yucatan. The two vessels met there on the 23d
of December. The Alabama took in the remainder of the supply of coal,
after which the Agrippina wasseutto Liverpool to procure a fresh sup ply. ^
1 British Appendix, vol. i, pp. 257-251). :
' Seromes's ''Adventures Afloat/' p. 516; Ujuited States DocumentSi vol. Ti, p. 491.
^ Semmee's ^'Adventures Afloat/' p. 519 ; United States Doc ument^, uhi tupra,
30 B
I
I
At J.imau'A.
466 ARBITRATION AT GENEVA.
On the 11th of January, the Alabama encountered the United States
ship of war the Hat teras, when, after, a short engagement, the lattfr
went down, there being just time to save the crew.
After this, the Ahibama with her prisoners made for Ja-
maica, and arrived at Port Koyal on the evening of the 20th.
This was her first appearance in a British port after her departure
from Liverpool on the 29th of July, 1861. It is observed in the Case of
the United States that the "promised orders" of Earl Russell to detain
her for a violation of British sovereignty- were not there.^
Earl Kussell had promised no such orders. The only orders ever
spoken of were those sent to Queenstown and to Nassau, as recommen-
ded by the law-otBcers immediately on the escape of the Alabama from
the Mersey, before any transfer to the Confederate States was knowa to
have been made.^ At the time the Alfebama was at Jamaica shewasa
commissioned ship of war, and as such, in the opinioa of Her Mctjesty's
government, protected from seizure.
The same question arises in respect to the Alabama as arises in re
spect of the Florida, namely, whether her commission as a ship of war
of the Confederate States gave her immunity from seizure for the breach
of British law when she was again found in a British port. But this
question it is unnecessary to consider if the British government is liable,
as we are all agreed it is, in respect of this vessel, by reason of the want
of due diligence in not preventing her departure.
The morning after the arrival of the Alabama at Jamaica, Captain
Semmes called on Commodore Dunlop, the officer in command at the
station, who reported to the admiral :
Aboukik, at Jamaica, Januatry 23, 18U:3.
Sin: I have the honor to inform you that on tbe evening of the 20tha8crew-8t6araer,
apparently a man-of-war, was seen off this port about vunset, under French color*.
After dark the vessel entered the harbor, and upon being boarded proved to be the
screw gun-vessel Alabama, under the so-called Confederate States flag.
2. On the morning of the 2ist, her commander, Captain Semmes, called on me, and
asked for permission to land seventeen officers and one hnndred and one men, the crew
of the late United States gun-vessel Hatteras, which had engaged the Alabama twenty-
live miles southeast of Galveston,* Texas, during the night of the 11 th January, nod
was sunk. The action, according to Captain Serames's account, lasted from 13 to 15
minutes, when the Hatteras, being in a sinking state, ceased firing, and the crew were
removed on board the Alabama, which there was just time to effect before the Hatteras
went do^n.
5. Captain Semmes then stated that he had six large shot-holes at the water-line,
"which it was absolutely necessary should be repaired before he could proceed to sea
with safety, and asked permission to receive coal and necessary supplies. The neces-
sity of the repairs was obvious, and I informed Captain Semmes that no time must be
lost in completing them, taking in his supplies, and proceeding to sea, in exact con-
formity with the spirit of Earl Russell's dispatch. Captain Semmes gave me his word
of honor that no unnecessary delay should take place, adding, "My interest is entirtfly
in accordance with your wishes on this point, for if I remain here an hour more than
can be avoided, I shall run the risk of finding a squadron of my enemies outside, forno
doubt they will be in pursuit of me immediately."
6. Owing to the delay in receiving the lieutenant-governor's answer to my letter
relative to landing the prisoners from Spanish Town, it was not until the evening of
the 21st tbat the permission to do so reached Captain Semmes, and too late for theiu to
be landed that night. The crowded state of the vessel previous to the landing of the
prisoners, on the morning of the 22d, made it difficult to proceed with the necessarv
repairs, and no doubt caused some unavoidable delay. As soon as these repairs are
completed, the Alabama will proceed to sea.^
The governor at once consented to the landing of the prisoners, ob-
serving that "common humanity would dictate such a permission heinjj
^ Case of the United States, p. :iS2.
»See British Appendix, vol, i, pp. 202, 203, 212, and 219.
3 British Appendix, vol. i, page 264.
OPINIONS OF- SIR ALEXANDER COCKBURN. 467
granted, as otherwise fever or pestilence might arise from an over-
cl*)W(letl ship, to say nothing of the horrors which would ensue should
the Alabama again go into action with them on board." Governor Eyre
added, that, *' of course, once landed, no person could be re embarked
against their will from British soil.'-^ The i>ri8oner8 were accordingly
lauded.
Assuming that the Alabama was properly received as a belligerent
vessel, no question can arise as to the propriety of allowing the neces-
sary repairs to be done. *' The fractures made by six large shot or shell
near the water-line of the Alabama," says Commodore Dunlop in his
report to the admiral, *' required extensive repairs."*^
I presume it can hardly be said that the ship ought to have been
forced to go to sea without these " large fractures" having been stopped
np.
She had anchored in the port, the commodore reports, after dark on
the eveniug of the 20th of January ; she commenced repairing the dam-
ages received in the action with the Ilatteras the next morning; but the
commodore adds that the repairs " could not be completed by the un-
skillful workmen hired here before late in the afternoon of the 25th, and
the Alabama sailed at 8.30 p. m. of the same evening." It cannot, there-
fore, be said that she was j)ermitted to stay too long in the port. She
received, the commodore states, *'a supply of provisions and coal," but
it does not appear what was the quantity. Ko complaint has ever been
made, that I am aware of, of any excess having been allowed. Com-
modore Dunlop certainly appears to have been quite alive to his duty of
enforcing the regulations. He concludes his report by saying:
In conclusion, I have only to state that the confederate vessel was treated strictly in
accordance witb the instructions contained in Earl Russell's iettrcr of the IHst Jannary,
18)1, and exactly as I shall act toward any United States man-of-war that may here-
after call here.
Two United States ships of war, the Richmond and Powhatan, arrived hero in 1861,
coaled and provisioned, and remained in port, the Richmond four days, and the Pow-
hatan three days ; the San Jacinto was also here, and remained four hours.^
I am therefore unable to concur in an opinion expressed by the
l>re^ident of this tribunal in thinking that "the reception of the Alaba-
ma at Jamaica far exceeded the measure of what the duties of neutrality
would admit of." If, by this, reference is intended to be made to the
fa^x that a young officer, in the absence of his superior, thoughtlessly
allowed the band of a Queen's ship to play a southern national air, a
circumstance afterward fully explained, and for which he was severely
reprimanded, or that the officers on the station went on board of the
Alabama, and treated her captain and officers as officers of a man-of-
war, or to the possible fact that the inhabitants of the island may have
shown some kindness toward, or sympathy with, the Southerners, I
can only protest against such facts being made a ground for fixing a
liability on the British government, when no fault can be fixed on the
local authorities. If the British government has been in any respect
wanting in due diligence, and injury has thence resulted to American
citizens, the British people are ready to make reparation. But to call
in aid, as founding a liability on the part of Great Britain, the fact that
otficers of Her Majesty's ships, or the inhabitants of a West Indian
colony, may have shown civilities to the officers of a confederate ship —
as why should they not? or have exhibited sympathy for the cause of
the South, when the authorities have strictly done their duty, does seem
1 Bririhh Appendix, vol. i, p. 265.
•2 Ibid., p. 261).
3 Ibid.
468 ARBITRATION AT GENEVA.
to mo, I must say, to be going a great deal too far ; indeed, further than
the Tinted States themselves. For neither in their case nor argument
have the latter gone so far as to assert that, saving in the matter of not
seizing the vessel, there was any breach of neutrality in what passed at
Jamaica.
But the same exception is also taken to what passed at the Cape.
At tiK c«i.t^ of It is necessary, therefore, to review the facts.
Good Hoi.0. rjy^Q Alabama arrived in Saldanha Bay on the 29th of
July, 1863. It appears from a dispatch of the admiral on the station,
8ir Baldwin Walker, to the admiralty, of August the 19th, that, on re-
ceiving information of her being there, be immediately gave orders to
Captain Forsyth, of Her Majesty's ship Valorous, to hold himself in
readiness to proceed to any of the parts of the colony in which the
Alabama might anchor, in order to preserve the rules of strict neutrality.'
On the 5th of August, having received a telegram that the Alabama
was off Table Bay, the admiral ordered the Valorous to proceed thither.
As the Alabama was standing into Table Bay, she fell in with and cap^
tured a United States vessel, called the Sea Bride, and a question arose
whether the capture had not been made within the waters of the colony.
Mr. Graham, the United States consul, immediately called the attention
of the governor. Sir Philip Wodehouse, to the capture, alleging it to
have been unlawful by reason of its having been made within 4 mik\s
of the shore.
He writes :
I believe there i8 no law defining the word ** coast," other than iuternatioual law.
That law has always limited neutral waters to the fighting distance from laud, which,
upon the invention of guupow^der, was extended to the distance of three nauticalmil«^
from land on a straight coast, and, by the same rule, since the invention of Armstrong
ritled cannon, to at least six miles.
But all waters inclosed by a line drawn between two promontoriea or headlands
are recognized by all nations as neutral, and England was the iii*st that adopte<l the
rule, calling such waters the " King's chambers/' By referring to " Wheatou's Digest."
page 2*34, or any other good work on international law, you will find the above riileji
laid down and elucidated.^
Mr. Graham also sent affidavits of the captain, the steward, and the
cook of the Sea Bride giving the bearings of the vessel at the time of
the capture to prove that the vessel, when captured, was within the
waters of the colony.
Captain Semines having been called upon for an explanation, answered;
In reply, I have the honor to state that it is not true that the bark referred to wa»
captured in British waters, and in violation of British neutrality, she having been
captured outside all headlands, and a distance from the nearest land of between five
and six miles. As I approached this vessel I called the particular att-ention of my
officers to the question of distance, and they all agree that the capture was made from
two to three miles outside of the marine league.'
The governor referred the matter to Captain Forsyth, who, after taking
the evidence of the port captain, of the light-house keeper of the Green
Point light, of the collector of customs, of the signalman at the Lion's
Bump telegraph-station, and of a boatman, all of whom had seen the
position of the two vessels, reported that he had come to the conclusion
that the Sea Bride was beyond the limits assigned when captured by the
Alabama. *
The decision of the governor, which, of course, was in accordance
with the opinion of Captain Forsyth, having been announced to Mi.
^ British Appendix, vol. i, p. 303.
sibid.,p. 302.
» Ibid., p. 315.
« Ibid., p. 311.
OPINIONS OF SIR ALEXANDER COCKBURN. 469
Graham, this gentleinaa loses all sens3 of propriety, and, forgetting that
he is addressing Her Majesty's representative, writes:
Your decision in the case of the Sea Bride was duly received at 4 o'clock p. m. on
Saturday. In commnuicuting tliat decision yon simply announce that the vessel was,
in your opinion, and according to the evidence before yon, a legal prize to the Alabama ;
but you omit to state the principle of international law that governed your decision,
and neglect to furnish me witii the evidence relied upon by you.
Under these circumstances, I can neither have the evidence verified or rebutted here,
nor am 1 enabled to transmit it as it stands to the American minister at Loudon, nor
to the United States Government at Washington. An invitation to be present when
the ejc-parte testimony was taken was not extended to me, and I atn therefore ignorant
of the tenor of it, and cannot distinguish the portion thrown out from that which was
accepted. If your decision is that the neutral waters of this colony only extend a dis-
tauco of three miles from land, the character of that decision would have been aptly
illnstrateil to the people of Cajie Town had an American war-vessel appeared on the
si-eue and engaged the Alabama in battle. In such a contest, with cannon carrying a
iiistance of six miles, (three over land,) the crashing buildings in Cape Town would
have been an excellent commentary on your decision.
Bnt the decision has been made, and cannot be revoked here, so that further com-
ment at i)*"esent is, therefore, unnecessary. It can only be reversed by the government
you represent, which it probably will be when the United States Government shall
claim indemnity for the owners of the Sea Bride.^
Keferring to the Tuscaloosa, he ends by saying :
The capture of the Sea Bride in neutral waters, together with the case of the Tusca-
loosa, »1ho a prize, constitute the latest and best illustration of British neutrality that
has yet been given.
The oftensive tone which the United States consuls allowed themselves
to assume toward British authorities is not a little remarkable.
The Sea Bride having been put in charge of a prize crew, while the
officer in charge was below, the vessel was, through inadv^ertonce,
allowed to be brought within two miles of the shore, and this also was forth-
with brought under the notice of the governor by Mr. Graham, who insist-
ed that the vessel should be seized. But it appeared from Mr. Graham's
own witnesses that the officer, coming on deck, stamped his foot as if
vexed at seeing the vessel where she was, and immediately ordered her to
be kept farther off. The governor therefore treated it as an act of inad-
vertence, especially as it was afterward apologized for. ^
Prior to coming into Table Bay, Captain Semmes had written from
Saldanha Bay to the governor :
An opportunity is offered me by the coasting schooner Atlas to communicate with
tlie Cape, of which I promptly avail myself.
I have the honor to inform your excellency that I arrived in this bay on Wednesday
morning last for the purpose of effecting some necewssary repairs. As soon as these re-
pairs can be completed I will proceed to sea, and in the mean time your excellency may
re«t assured that I will pay the strictest attention to the neutrality of your govern-
nient.^*
On the announcement of the Alabama being in Saldanha Bay, Mr.
Graham, the United States consul, wrote to the governor, insisting on
her being seized :
From reliable information received by me» an/l which you are also doubtless in pos-
HesHion of, a war-steamer called the Alabama is now in Saldanha Bay, being painted;
diHcharging prisoners of war, &c.
The vessel in question was built in England, to prey upon the commerce of the
Unite<I States of America, and escaped therefrom while on her trial trip, forfeiting
bonds of £20,000, which the British governmout exacted under the foreign-enlistment
act.
Now, as yonr government has a treaty of amity and commerce with the United
States, and has not recognized the persons in revolt against the United States as a gov-
eromeut at all, the vessel alluded to should be at once seized and sent to England, from
^ British Appendix, vol. i, p. 304.
2 Ibid., p. 316, 317, and 329.
ajbid., p. 308.
470 ARBITRATION AT GENEVA.
whence she claadestinely escaped. AssnmiDg that the British govern-
CiM'l'^ ^ '^ "" '*^*"' '^^"^ ^^*^* siucere iu exacting the bonds, you have doubtless been in-
structed to send her home to England, where she belongs. But if, from
Home oversight, you have not received such instructions, and you decline the responsi-
bility of making the seizure, I would most respeclfuliy protest against the ves^I re-
maining in any port of the colony another day. She has been at Saldanha Bay fonr
[six] days already, and a week previounly on the coaj^t, and has forfeited all right to
remain an hour longer by tliis breach of neutrality. Painting a ship does not come
under the head of "necessary repairs," and is no proof that she is uuseaworthy ; and
to allow her to visit other ports after she has set the Queen's proclamation of nen-
trality at defiance would not be regarded as in accordance with the spirit and purpose
of that document.'
Mr. Grabam received for answer :
Hia excellency has no instructions, neither has he any authority, to seize or detain
that vessel; and he desires me to aciiuaint you that he has received a letter from the
commander, dated the 1st instant, stating that repairs were in progress, and as soon as
they were completed he intended to go to sea. He further announces his iiit^ution of
respecting strictly the neutrality, of the British government.
The course which Captain Semmes here proposes to take is, in the governor's opinion,
in conformity with the instructions he has himself receiv(;d relative to ships of war
and privateers belonging to the United States and the States calling themselves the
Confederate States of America visiting British ports.
The reports received from Saldauha Bay induce the governor to believe that the ves-
sel will leave that harbor as soon as her repairs are completed ; but he will, immedi-
atel}** on receiving intelligence to the contrary, take the necessary steps for eufurcing
the observance of the rules laid down by Her Majesty's govern men t.'^
Called upon afterward to advise as to the propriety of what had taken
place with reference to the Alabama at the Cape, the law-ofiicers, Sir R.
Palmer, SirE. Collier, and Sir R. Phillimore, the latter so deservedly
held up as an authority by the United States, on the 19th of October
advised :
With respect to the Alabama herself, we are clearly of opinion that neither the gov
emor nor any other authority at the Cape could exercise any jnrisdictiou over h«r
and that, whatever was her previous history, they were bound to treat her as a ship
of war belonging to a belligerent power.^
It strikes me that this tribunal should hesitate before it decides that
three such legal authorities were wrong. Or are we to suppose that an
" insincere neutrality" lurks beneath their opinion, though given in the
course of official duty ?
On his arrival in Table Bay, on the 5th of August, Captain Semmes
wrote to the governor, informing him that he had come in for supplies
and repairs, and requesting to be allowed to land his prisoners, thirty-
three in number, lately captured on board two ships destroyed by him
at sea. The governor gave permission to land the prisoners, but de-
sired that Captain Semmes would *' state the nature and extent of the
supplies and repairs required, that he might be enabled to form some
estimate of the time it w^ould be necessary for the Alabama to remain in
the port."
Captain Semmes replies:
In the way of supplies I shall need some provisions for my crew, a list of which will
be hande<l you to-morrow by the paymaster, and as for repairs my boilers need some
iron-work to be done, and my bends require calking, being quite open. I propose to
take on board the necessary materials here, and to proceed with all dispatch to Simon*^
Bay, for the purpose of making these repairs.**
On the morning of the Gth the paymaster of the vessel called on the
governor, with the merchant who was to furnish the supplies, and leave
' British Appendix, vol. i, p. 300.
« Ibid., p. 301.
» Ibid., p. 323.
<Ibid.,p. 314.
OPINIONS OF SIR ALEXANDER COCKBURN. 471
was given to the vessel to renjain till the next day, the 7th. In a
dispatch to the Duke of Newcastle Sir Philip Wodehouse states :
On the nij;ht of the 5th Iler Majesty's ship VjUorous had come roand from Simon's
Bay. During the night of the Cth the weather hecame unfavorable; a vessel was
vrrecked in the bay, and a heavy sea prevented the Alabama from receiving her sup-
plies by the time arranged. On the morning of the 8th, Captsiin Forsyth, of the
V'^alorouH, and the port captain, by my desire, pressed on Captain Semmes the neces-
Hity for his leaving the port without any unnecessary delaj"; when he pleaded the con-
tinued heavy sea and the absence of his cooking-apparatus, which had been sent on
shore for i*opairs, and had not been returned by the tradesman at the time appointed,
and intimated his own anxiety to get away. Between 6 and 7 a. m., on the 9th, he
sailed, and on his way round to Simon's Bay captured another vessel, but on finding
that she was in neutral waters, immediately released her.^
With reference to the latter circumstance, Sir B. Walker, in his dis-
patch to the admiralty, saj^s :
During his passage to this port Captain Semmes chased another American vessel^
the Martha Wentzel, standing in for Table Bay. On my pointing out to him that he
bad done so in neutral waters, he assured me that it was quite unintentional, and, be-
ing at a distance from the land, he did not observe that he had got within three miles
^if an imaginary line drawn from the Cape of Good Hope to Cape Hanglip, but on dis-
covering it he did not detain the vessel. This explanation I considered sufficient.'^
Having arrived at Simon's Bay on the 9th, the vessel was calked,
and had other slight repairs done. She took in no coal on this occa-
sion. She left on the loth. ''Captain Semmes,'' says the admiral,
" was guarded in his conduct, and expressed himself as most anxious
not to violate the neutrality of these waters."^
The Alabama again put into Simon's Bay on the 16th of September
to coal and have repairs done. It has never been suggested that, either
in respect of the stay of the vessel on either occasion, or the amount of
repair, or the quantity of coal, any indulgence was allowed to her in
excess of the Queen's regulations.*
Courtesies and sympathy may have been shown by the inhabitants
to the officers and crew of the ship. But, as I have already observed,
these are things which a neutral government cannot prevent, and for
which it would be simply absurd to say it could be responsible. Prob-
ably, as was very sensibly remarked by a Cape newspaper, the Argus,
cited by Captain Semmes in his journal, when speaking of the sympathy
shown by the inhabitants, " It was not, perhaps, taking the view of
either side, Federal or confederate, but in admiration of the skill, pluck,
and daring of the Alabama, her captain and her crew, who afibrd a gen-
eral theme of admiration all the world over."^
From the Cape of Good Hope the Alabama proceeded to the Eastern
Seas. She touched at Singapore in December, 1863, and vis- ,„ the K.^^ru
ited the Cape on her way back to European waters in March, ®**'-
1864. It is mentioned, in the Case of the United States,*^ as a fresh in-
stance of the violation of the duties of Great Britain as a neutral, that,
having taken in coal at Singapore on the 23d of December, she was al-
lowed to commence coaling again at Cape Town on the 2l8t of March —
two days too soon. But I can hardly suppose this will be seriously in-
sisted on. Moreover, it appears from the British Counter Case"^ that
the charge, such as it is, resting on no better foundation than Captain
Seinmes's journals, is founded on a miscalculation of dates. The Ala-
bama seems to have taken in her supply of coal at Singapore, not on
^ British Appendix, vol. i, p. 312. '
2Ibid., p. 307.
3 Ibid.
* Ibid., p. 325.
B United States Documents, vol. vi, p. 4^.
« Pages 316, 386.
7 Page 117.
472 ARBITRATION AT GENEVA.
the 23d, but on the 22d of December ; anrf, although she arrived at
Table Bay on the 20th of March, she did not commence coaling till the
22d, when the period of three months prescribed by the regulations had
exactly elapsed. Indeed, she could not have done so earlier had it been
Avished, on account of the heavy gale that was then prevailing.
The career of the Alabama was now drawing to a close. On the 11th
of June, 18G4, she entered the port of Cherbourg. Tlie
United States war-steamer, the Kearsarge, appeared shortlj'
afterward in the neighboring waters. A challenge ensued between the
commanders of the two vessels, and, on the morning of the 19th of
June, the Alabama steamed out of Cherbourg to encounter her formi-
dable opponent. The fire of the Kearsarge proved too heavy for the
Alabama, and the latter sank under it and went down, aflPording to the
victors the opportunity for the boastful taunt — which even the peaceful
occasion of this arbitration could not restrain — that "thus this British-
built, British-armed, and British-manned cruiser went down under the
fire of American guus."^
As if everything connected with this vessel must giv^e birth to con-
troversy, the sinking of the Alabama gave rise to a discussion, not un-
interesting in a juridical point of view, though beside the purpose of
the present inquiry. As the Alabama was rapidly sinking, an officer in
one of her boats came to the Kearsarge, said they had surrendered,
and that the ship was going down, and asked for assistance to save the
crew. The Deerhounci, a steam-yacht belonging to an English gentle-
man, who had gone out of Cherbourg to witness the combat, coming
up at the moment, was begged by the captain of the Kearsarge to help
to save the people of the Alabama. The boats of the Deerhound hav-
ing been lowered succeeded in saving Captain Semmes and many of the
crew, who were struggling in the water.^
Others were saved by the Alabama's boat, with the before-mentioned
otiicer in her. All the persons saved were taken on board the Deer-
hoiiud, and were carried by the owner, Mr. Lancaster, into Southamp-
ton, and there set free.
They were claimed as prisoners by the United States Gov^ernmenton
the ground that, the Alabama having surrendered, her crew were neces-
sarily prisoners. If saved they could only be saved as prisoners, or, as
the alternative, they should have been left to drown.
Mr. Adams having written complaining that the owner of the Deer-
hound had taken away the persons thus saved, Lord Russell answered:
I have the honor to Htate to you, in reply, that it appears to me that the owner of
the Deerhound, of the Koyal Yacht Squadron, perfornied only a common duty of human-
ity in saving from the wavtss the captain and several of the crew of the Alabama. Tbcy
would otherwise, in all probability, have been drowned, and thus would never have
been in the situation of prisoiiers of war.
It does not appear to me to bo any part of the duty of a neutral to assist in making
prisoners of war for one of the belligerents. ^
Tlie alternative is thus sternly put by Mr. Seward in a dispatch to Mr.
Adams :
The earl argues that if those persons had not been so taken from the sea they wonM,
in all probability, have been drowned, and thus would never have been in tiie situa-
tion of prisoners of war. Earl Kussell further observes, in that connection, that itdoe:*
not appear to him to be any part of the duty of a neutral to assist in making prisoners
of war for one of the. belligerents.
I have to observe, upon these remarks of Earl Rnssell, that it was the right of the
Kearsarge that the pirates should drown, unless saved by humane exertions of the
i Case of the United States, p. 387.
'^ British Appendix, vol. i, p. 384.
3 United States appendix, vol. iii, p. 263.
OPINIONS OF SIR ALEXANDER COCKBURN. 473
officers and crew of tbat vessel, or by their own efforts, without the aid of the Deer-
hound. The men were either already actually prisoners, or they were desperately pur-
sued by the Kearaarge. Jf they had perished, the Kearsarge would have had the ad-
vantage of a lawful destrucblon of so many enemies ; if they had been recovered by the
Kearsarge, with or without the aid of the Deerhound, then the voluntary surrender of
those persons would have been perfected, and they would have been prisoners. In
neither ca«e would they have remained hostile confederates.
The Deerhound, by taking the men from the waves and conveying them within a
foreign jurisdiction, deprived the United States of the lawful benetits of a long and
costly pursuit and successful hattle.
I freely admit that it is no part of a neutral's duty to assist in making captive^j for
a belligerent; but 1 maintain it to be equally clear that, so far from being neutrality,
it is direct hostility for a stranger to intervene and rescue men who had been cast into
the ocean in battle, and then convey them away from under the conqueror's guus.^
Possibly, in strictness of law, Mr. Seward was right in contending
that a belligerent is entitled to the death of his enemy, and that a neu-
tral cannot interfere to save the latter from destruction. But it is idle
to propound legal theories in such a case; the instinct of humanity will
be certain to prevail over all considerations of legal right — God forbid
that it should not! — and the neutral who has rescued a sinking fellow-
creature from impending death may be excused if he does not deliver up
as a prisoner the man whom he has saved from perishing.
Be this as it may, the British government had but one answer to make
to the demand that these persons should be given up as prisoners,
namely, that, however they had reached British soil, when on it they
were entitled to the protection of its laws; and that the government,
which had had nothing to do with the manner of their escape, oven if it
had the will, had not the power to deliver them up.
CASE OF THE TUSCALOOSA.
Immediately connected with the case of the Alabama is that of the
Tuscaloosa.
This vessel, originally called the Conrad, was a merchant-
vessel of the United States. She was taken by the Alabama when oii
the coast of Brazil, being then loaded with a cargo of wool.
Captain Semmes, the commander of the Alabama, put an officer and
ten men on board of her, with two small ritied 12 ])ounder guns, gave
her the name of Tuscaloosa, and, bringing her to the Cape, where she
arrived on the 7th of August, 18G3, requested that she might be ad-
mitted to the harbor of Simon's Bay as a tender of the Alabama, in
other words, as a ship of war.
The admiral on the station. Sir Baldwin Walker, learning that the
so-called tender had never been condemned in a prize court, conceived*
doubts as to the legality of considering her in the light of a tender. lie
therefore wrote to the governor, Sir Philip Wodehouse, requesting him
to obtain the oj)inion of the law-officers as to whether the vessel ought
not to be looked upon as a prize, and as such prohibited from entering
the bay.^
The attorney-general of the colony reported that the Tuscaloosa could
not be looked upon as a prize, on the ground that she purported to be a
ship of war, and there was no legal proof to satisfy the local government
that such was not her true character ; that Captain Semmes, as com-
manding a ship of war of the Confederate States, had authority to con-
vert a captured vessel into a ship of war, and so to invest her with all
the rights and immunities accorded to such vessels, and that it was not
for the local authorities, but for the courts of the captor, to determine
^ United States Appendix, vol. iii, p. 273.
'British Appendix, vol.i, p. 308.
474 ARBITKATIOX AT GENEVA.
her real character, vrbile no means existed in the colony for determining
whether she had or had not been legally condemned.^
Having afterward found that the vessel had her cargo of wool still
on board, and that her armament was only what ha.sbeen stated, Sir B.
Walker felt still more doubtful as to the real character of the vessel.
Writing to the governor on the 9th of August he says:
The admiHsion of this vessel into port wHl, I fear, open the door for numbers of ves-
sels ca)>tured under similar circumstances beiug denominated t^ndera, with a view to
avoid the prohibition contained in the Queen's instructions; and I would observe that
the vessel, the Sea Bride, captured by the Alabama ofi* Table Bay a few days since, or
all other )>rizes, mi^j^ht be iu like manner styled tenders, making the prohibitioii en-
tirely null and void.
I apprehend that to bring a captured vessel nnder the denomination of a vessel of
war she must be fitted for warlike purposes, and not merely have a few men and
two small guns on board her, (iu fact nothing but a prize crew,) in order to di^uise
her real character as a prize.
Now, this vessel has her original cargo of wool still on board, which cannot here-
qnired for warlike purposes, aud her armament and the number of her crew are quite
iusufiicient for any services other than those of slight defense.
Viewing all the circumstances of the case, they atford rooui for the supposition that
the vesselis styled a *' tender," with the object of avoiding the prohibition against her
entrance as a prize into our ports, where, if the captors wished, arrangements could be
made for the disposal of her valuable cargo, the transshipment of which, your excellency
will not fail to see, might be readily efiected on any part of the coast beyond the luuit«
of this colony.
My sole object in calling your excellency's attention to the case is to avoid any
breach of strict neutrality."
The attorney-general, however, on beingagain referred to, reported that
" if the vessel received the two guns from the Alabama or other confed-
erate vessel of war, or if the person iu command of her has a commissioD
of war, or if she be commanded by an officer of the confederate navy, in
any of these cases there will be a sufficient setting forth as a vessel of
war to justify her being held to be a ship of war. If all of these points
be decided iu the negative, she must be held to be only a prize and
ordered to leave forthwith."^
The admiral on this gave way, and the Tuscaloosa was treated as a
ship of war, and as such admitted into the harbor and allowed to obtain
provisions. She left the bay on the 14th of August/ and Captain
Semmes having contrived to dispose of her cargo of wool at a place on
the coast beyond the precincts of the colony, dispatched her on a cruise
to Brazil.*
While thus occupied she is said to have done some mischief to United
States vessels.
. The Tuscaloosa again put into Simon's Bay on the 26th of December^
1803.«
In the mean time, the government having reported to the secretary of
state for the colonies what had happened on the occasion of her former
visit, the Duke of Newcastle had deemed it right to take the opinion of
the law-officers of the Crown as to the law applicable to such a OAse.
On the 19th of October the law-officers reported as follows :
Upon the point raised with regard to the vessel called the Tuscaloosa, we are not abl«'
to a^ree with the opinion expressed hy the attorney -general of the Cape Colony, that
she liad ceased to have the character of a prize captured by the Alabama, merely W-
cause she was, at the time of her being brought within British waters, armed with two
small guns, in charge of an ofticer, and manned with a crew of ten men from the Alu-
bauia, aud used as a tender to that vessel, under the authority of Captain Semmes.
' British Appendix, vol. i, p. W9.
2 Ibid., p. 310.
'Ibid., p. 311.
* British Appendix, vol. i, p. 313.
* United States Documents, vol. vi, p. 499.
® British Appendix, vol. i, p. 330.
OPINIONS OF SIR ALEXANDER COCKBURN. 475
It would appear that the TuHcaloosa in a bark of 500 tons, captnred by the Alabama
oft' the coant of Brazil on the 21st of June last, and brought into Simon's Bay on or be-
fore the 7th of Auj;nst, with her original car^j^o of wool (itself, as well as the vessel,
prize) still on board, and with nothing to give her a warlike character, (so far as appears
from the papers before us,) except the circumstances already noticed.
We therefore do not feel called upon, in the circumstances of this case, to enter into
the question whether, in the case of a vessel duly commissioned as a ship of war, after
being made prize by a belligereut government, without being iirst brought infra prwsidia
or condemned by a court of prize, the character of prize, within the meaning of Her
Majesty's orders, would or would not be merged in that of a national ship of war. It
is enough to say that the citation from Mr. Wheatou's book, by the colonial attorney-
general, does not appear to us to have any direct bearing upon this question.
Connected with this subject is the question as to the cargoes of captured vessels,
which is noticed at the end of Sir Philip VVodehouse's dispatch of the 19th August last.
We think that, according to the true interpretation of Her Majesty^s orders, they apply
as much to prize cargoes of every kind which may be brought by any armed ships or
privat-cers of either belligerent into British waters as to the captured vessels themselves.
They do not, however, apply to any articles which may have formed part of any such
cargoes, if brought within British jurisdiction, not by armed ships or privateers of either
belligerent, but by other persons who may have acquired or may claim property in them
by reason of any dealings with the captors.
Wo think it right to observe that the third reason alleged by the colonial attorney-
general fur his opinion assumes (though the fact had not been made the subject of any
inquiry) that ** no means existed for determining whether the ship had or had not beeu
judicially condemned in a court competent of jurisdiction ;'' and the proposition that,
'^^ admitting her to hare been captured by a ship of war of the Confederate SiateSy she was en-
titled to refer Her Majesty's government, in case of dispute, to the court of her States,
in order to satisfy it as to her real character," appears to us to be at variance with H<m*
Majesty's undoubted right to determine, within her own territory, whether her orders,
ma<le in vindication of her own neutrality, have been violated or not.
The question remains, what course ought to have been taken by the authorities at the
Cape, first, in order to ascertain whether this vessel was, as alleged by the United States
consul, au uncondemned prize, brought within British waters iu violation of Her
Majesty's neutrality ; and secondl3-, what ought to have been done if such had appeared
to be really the fact f Wo think that the allegations of the United States consul ought
to have been brought to the knowledge of Captain Senimes while the Tuscaloosa was
still within British waters; and that he should have beeu requested to state whether
he did or did not admit the fact-s to be as alleged. He should also have been called upon
(unless the facts were admitted) to produce the Tuscaloosa's papers. If the result of
these inquiries had been to prove that the vessel was really an uncondemned prize,
brought into British waters in violation of Her Majesty's orders made for the purpose
of maintaiuing her neutrality, it would, wo think, deserve very serious consideration
whether the mode of proceeding in such circumstances, most consistent with Her
Majesty's dignity and most proper for the vindication of her territorial rights, would
not have been to prohibit the exercise of any further control over the Tuscaloosa by
the captors, and to retain that vessel under Her Majesty's control and jurisdiction until
properly reclaimed by her original owners.^
It will be observed that in the foregoing opinion of the law-oflBcers?
tbe question whether the Tuscaloosa should, under the circumstances,
have been detained for the purpose of being restored to her original
owners, is suggested as one deserving, should the like case recur, of very
serious consideration ; it is by no means one on which a positive opinion
was intended to be given. The governor and the admiral, however, con-
sidered it as establishing not only that they ought to have detained the
Tuscaloosa, when formerly within their jurisdiction, but as imposing on
them the duty of doing so now that, having returned to the Cape, she
wa« again within their power. They accordingly took possession ot her.
Her commander, Lieutenant Low, thereupon addressed the following
protest to the governor :
TrscALoosA, Simon's Bav, Cape of Good Hope,
December 28, 1863.
Sir : As the officer in command of the Confederate Stat-es ship Tuscaloosa, tender
to the Confederate States steamer Alabama, I have t^> record my protest against- the
recent extraordinary measures which have been adopted toward me and the vessel
under ray command by the British authorities of this colony.
^ British Appendix, vol. ii, p. 323.
476 ARBITRATION AT GENEVA.
In August last tlio Tuscaloosa arrived iu Sipion's Bay. She was not only recognized
in the character which she lawfully claims to be, viz, a commissioned ship of war be-
longing to a belligerent power, but was allowed to remain in the harbor for the perio<l
of seven days, taking in supplies and effecting repairs, with the full knowledge and
sanction of the authorities.
No intimation was given that she was regarded merely in the light of an ordinary
prize, or that she was considered to be violating the laws of neutrality. Nor, wht'ii
she notoriously left for a cruise on active service, was any intimation what.ever con-
vey<'d that on her return to the port of a friendly power, where she had been received
as a man-of-war, she would be regarded as a " prize,'' as a viohitor of the Queen's proc-
lamation of neutrality, and eouseiiueutly liable to seizure. Misled by the conduct of
Her Majesty's government, I returned to Simon's Biy nu the. 2»th instant, in very
urgent want of repairs and supplies; to my surprise 1 find the Tuscaloosa is now no
longer considered as a man-of-war, and she has, by yourorders. as I learn, l>een seized for
the purpose of being handed over to the person who claims her on behalf of her late
owners.
Tlie character of the vessel, viz, that of a lawful commissioned man-of-war of the
Confederate States of America, has not been altered since her first arrival in Simon's
Bay ; ami she having been once fully recognized by the British authorities in command
in this colony, and no notice or warning of change of opinion or of friendly feelinsj
having been communicated by public notification or otherwise, I wjiseutitled toexi>eci
to be again permitted to enter Simon's Bay without molestation.
In perfe(^t good faith I returned to Simon's Bay for mere necessaries, and in all hon<»r
and good faith in return I should, on change of opinion or of policy on the part of the
British authorities, have been desired to leave the port again.
But, by the course of proceedings taken, I have been (supposing the view now taken
by your excellency's government to be correct) first misled, and next entrapped.
My position and character of my ship will most certainly be vindicated by ray gov-
ernment. I am powerless to resist the affront offered to the Confederate States of
America by your excellency's eoiuluct and proceedings.
I demand, however, the release of my ship ; and, if this demand be not promptly
(•omplied with, I hereliy formally prote.-^t against her seizure, especially niider the very
peculiar circumstances of the case.^
Upon this i)ro(*ee(lini2^ beiii^ reported to the government at home, the
opinion of the h\w-ot!icers was again taken. It was felt that what had
been done coiiUl not be properly upheld, it was obviously one thing to
have seized the Tuscaloosa on the former occasion, as a prize broaght
into a port of her Her Majesty; a very ditterent thing, after she bad
been treated as a ship of war, and allowed to go free, to let her come
again into port in the like charjicter without notice of any hostile inten-
tion, and then to seize and practically condemn her. Assuming — of
'which, however, I must say I entertain very serious doubts — the right
and power of the government to take such a course, it savors too much
of pertidy to be a course w^hich Her Majesty's government could pursue
with a duo regard to honor and good faith. Orders were therefore sent
out by the secretary of state for the colonies " to restore the vessel to
the lieutenant of the Confederate States who lately commanded her;
or, if he should have left the Cape, then to retain her until she can be
handed over to some person w ho may have authority from Captain
Semmes, of the Alabama, or from the government of the Confederate
States, to receive her.^'^
The order to restore this vessel has been reflected upon in the case of
the United States f but I cannot but think that the decision come to by
the government was, under the circumstances, perfectly right; not only
for the reason assigned, but also because, whatever might have been the
power of the British government to seize this vessel while still retain-
ing the character of a prize, she had now been invested with that of a
vessel of war belonging to a belligerent, and was therefore no longer
amenable to the municipal jurisdiction.
* British Appendix, vol. i, p. 333.
«Ibid., p. 342.
-' Page 273.
OPNFOXS OF 8IR ALEXANDER COCKBURN. 477
The questioD is, however, of no practical importance whatsoever.
The Tuscaloosa never was delivered up. Lieutenant Low having left
the Cape when the order of the Duke of Newcastle came out, she re-
mained in the custody of the local authorities till the end of the war,
and was then delivered up to the United States. No claim of damages
can arise, therefore, with regard to her in this respect.^
A serious question of law, however, presents itself in I'espect of what-
soever damage may have been done by the Tuscaloosa, while cruising
in the interval between her leaving the Cape and her return to it. This
liability may be asserted on two grounds: first, it maybe said that,
the Alabama having been enabled to make war on the commerce of the
United States through the want of due diligence on the part of the Brit-
ish government, and the Tuscaloosa having been taken by the Alabama
and converted into a ship of war employed in the same warfare, the mis-
chief done by her must be looked upon as the consequence of such
original default of the government, and must be answered for accord-
ingly; a proposition obviously involving very serious consequences, as
leading to a liability of a most extensive and unlimited character.
Secondly, it may be said that the Tuscaloosa ought to have been seized
and delivered up to her original owners, when first found at the Cape,
and that the British government must, as having allowed her to go free,
be held liable for any damage afterward done by her. But this argu-
ment, of course, assumes, first, that the government had the power and
right to seize this vessel ; secondly, that it was under any obligation to
do so ; thirdly, that if such an obligation existed, it rendered the gov-
ernment liable to do more than comj)ensate the original owners, and in-
volved them in liability toward the United States Government.
The question, though of some legal interest, is otherwise but of small
importance by reason of the very small amount of damage done by this
vessel. On the whole I am disposed to think, though not without some
doubt as to whether the damage may not be too remote to found a legal
liability, that the mischief done by the Tuscaloosa being the direct con-
sequence of the equipment of the Alabama, on the principle that
"omne accessarium sequitur suum principale," those who are answer-
able for the one must be answerable also for the other. I acquiesce,
therefore, in the decision of the rest of the tribunal in respect of this
vessel.
CASE OF THE GEORGIA.
The case of the Georgia is one in which not even the desire to establish
great principles of neutrality at the expense of Great
Britain can, as it appears to me, find matter on which to "'•^ ••«'"ni.».
found a charge of want of due diligence.
This vessel was built at Dumbarton, on the Clyde, and was evidently
originally intended as a blockade-runner, which may account for the in-
teresting fact, thrice repeated in the American case and argument, that
she was christened by a young lady, the daughter of Captain North,
who was in some way connected with the insurgent service.
The Georgia was evidently not constructed as a vessel of war, though
aft4?rward applied to that purpose. The vigilance of the government
having been aroused by the escape of the Florida and the Alabama, the
building of ships of war for the confederate service had become a mat-
ter of extreme diflficulty, and recourse was had to the contrivance of
converting ships, originally built as blockade-runners, into vessels of
war. •
^ British Appendix, vol. i, p. 363.
478 ARBITRATION AT GENEVA.
She was rej»:isteretl on the 20th of March, 1S63, as the property of a
Mr. Thomas Bold, a merchant of Liverpool, on his declaration that he
was the sole owner.^ She was advertised at the Sailors' Home at Liver-
pool, as about to sail for Singapore; seamen were engaged for her as
bound to that port, and her crew signed articles for a voyage to Singa-
pore, or any intermediate port, for a period of two years.*
On the 1st of April this vessel, the name of which had been changed
to the Japan, cleared out in ballast for a voyage to Point de Galle and
Hong Kong.' Her crew, the number of which, as appears from the
deposition ot* Thomas Mahou, one of them, was about 50,* but which,
according to the report of the chief oflBcer of customs, was in fact 48/
though magnilicd by Mr. Dudley into 70 or 80,* having been hired at
Liverpool by the firm of Jones & Co., of that place, were sent by
steamer to the Clyde. They had shipped for a two years' voyage to
Singapore, there aud back, tnid beyond all question had shipped in the
honest belief that the ship was bound for that place. The vessel sailed
on the 2d of April from Greenock, but appears only to have dro[)i)ed
farther down the river, and not to have finally left till the 6th or 7th.
Mr. Dudley, on the 3d of April, writing to Mr. Seward on the subject ot
this vessel, adds :
My belief iH that she l»eloii«rs to tb« confederates, and is to be converted iuto a
privateer; quite likely to eriiivse in the East ludieH, as Mr. Yonng, the paymaster from
the Alabama, telLs me it haH always been a favorite idea of Mr. Mallory, the fiecretarr
of tlie ciHifederate navy, to send a privateer in these watera. I sent a man from here
to (ilas^ow to accompany these men, to endeavor to find out the destination oftbf
vessel, &c. He has not been successful yet in his efforts. He has been on board, and
writes tliat she has no annanuMit, and he is still there watching her. I have directed
him, before he returns, to visit the yards in the Clyde, aud to go down to Stockton and
Hartlepool.'*
From a letter from Mr. Adams to Mr. Seward, of the 9th, it appears
that that gentleman " had long been in possession of information about
the constrnction and outfit of this vessel in the Clyde ; but," he adds,
" nothing has ever been furnished me of a nature to base proceeduigs
upon.'^ Neither had there been, assuredly, up to this time, anything
which would have justified Mr. Adams in applying to Her Majesty's
government to seize this vessel, or the government in seizing her.
The measuring surveyor, who had surveyed her on the 17th of
January, and had been on board on two subsequent occasions for the
purpose of completing his survey, stated that she "appeared to him to
be intended for commercial purposes, her frame-work and plating being
of the ordinary size for vessels of her class.'"^ The collector of customs,
upon an inquiry being afterward directed by the government, re-
ported :
I have qnestioned the ofTieer who performs tide-8iirveyor*8 daty afloat, and vbo
Tisited her on the evening of the 1st instant, to see that the stores were correct. He
informs me he saw nothing on board which couhl lead bini to suspect that she wa-i
intended for war purposes. I can testify that she was not heavily sparred; iudenl,
she could not spread more canvas than an ordinary merchant-steamer. I beg to adii,
when the tide-surveyor was on board, the joiners were fitting doors to the cabins/
The vessel left ostensibly for the purpose of trying her engines, and
an intention was professed of returning to land the joiners who wore
on board.
' British Appendix, vol. 1, p. 424.
^ Ibid., p. 426.
3 Ibid., p. 404.
<Ibid., p. 413.
* United States Documents, vol. vi, p. .509.
•United Stat-es Documents, vol. ii, p. 6j7.
' British Appendix, vol. 1, p. 404.
'British Appendix, vol. i, p. 404.
OPINIONS OF SIR ALEXANDER COCKBURN. 479
But while thus leaviuo^ in the disguise of a peaceful merchant- vessel
trying its engines, the Japan was intended to be converted into a ship
of war, and was not to return to Greenock. When she got well away
from Greenock, the joiners, who had been fitting up cabin-doors when
she left, were employed to fit up a magazine, and were afterward landed
lower down in the Clyde. Up to this time no information had been
furnished, or communication made, to Iler Majesty's government on the
subject of this vessel.
liaving left the Clyde, the Japan proceeded to the coast of France,
where, as we know, she was joined b^' the small steamer Alar, which
brought out to her her iirmament of guns and munitions of war.
Let us pause here for a moment to see whether, thus far, there was
anything in respect of which negligence could be, with the slightest
show of reason, imputed to Her Majesty's government.
It is certain that, though the attention of Mr. Underwood, the United
States consul at Glasgow, had been for some time fixed on this vessel,
there was nothing on which it was thought that the action of the gov-
ernment could be invoked.
It is said, indeed, in the argument of the United States, that the
reason was that he "had not and could not, with his means of informa-
tion, produce ' such evidence as would support an indictment for mis-
demeanor ;' and nothing short of that, Mr. Adams had been informed
in the July previous, would, in the opinion of the solicitor of the customs
at London, furnish 'justifiable ground of seizure.'^ But, whatever
might have been said in the preceding July, at this time there was
everything to encourage Mr. Adam?, if he had possessed any ground
for asking for the interposition of the government, to take that course.
During the last three months he had made representations to the British
government on the subject of three diflferent vessels, the Georgiana,
the Phantom, and the Southerner, in regard to which, at the time of his
first communication, he had no evidence to produce beyond the state-
ments or suspicions of the United States consul at London or Liver-
pool ; and inquiries had been instantly made in each case, and in regard
to the latter two vessels, Mr. Adams was writing at this very time
(April 6) to express his satisfaction at the steps which had been taken.^
He was, moreover, in correspondence with Earl Kussell on the subject
of another vessel, the Alexandra, which was seized on the 5th April by
order of the government, a fact of which he was informed on the same
day, and at which ho also wrote to testify his *' lively satisfaction."'
He knew, too, that on no better authority than public report, the gov-
ernment had of themselves instituted an inquiry in the month of March
with a view to ascertaining whether vessels of war were being built at
Glasgow for the confederates, the result of which inquiry had been com-
mnnicated to him on the 21st of March.^ The reason why Mr. Adams
made no communication to the Government relative to this vessel was,
as he expressly stated when writing to Mr. Seward three days later than
the date of the vessel's departure, that ^^ nothing had been furnished
to him of a nature to base proceedings upon."
Upon what, then, can any charge of negligence against Her Majesty's
government be founded in respect of this vessel f Simply upon the old
allegation of the notoriety of the fact that it was being fitted out as a
vessel of war for the service of the confederate government. And how
is this notoriety attempted to be established! Solely by an anonymous
I British Appendix, vol. ii, p. 71.
Ubid., p. an.
3 Uuited States Docaments, vol. ii, p. 203.
480 ARBITRATION AT GENEVA.
letter, ])urportiug to be addressed to Lord Palmerston, published in the
Daily News of the 12th of February, 1863, in which the vessel is spoken
of.^ Ihe letter is a very long one, and not written in a stjie to command
much attention, the changes being rung on *^ pirates" and " slavehold-
ers" in a very sensational style. The probability is, that this letter
was never seen by any of Her Majesty ministers ; still more so that,
if it was, it was not read through. If it is meant to be suggested that
the author was writing upon facts notorious to the world, and not from
his own private sources of knowledge, it is only necessary to turn to
the letter to see that this could not have been so. The writer is person-
ally familiar with the whole subject of vessels built for, or in the in-
terest of, the confederates, and was doubtless some official connected
with the United States. But what form did the notoriety, of which this
anonymous writer was the organ, take in respect of the Japan, after-
ward the Georgia? Did it treat her as a vessel of war, as the passages
in the American case and argument would lead us to suppose! Not
so. Her destination was expected to be of an humbler kinti — that of a
blockade-runner. This is what is said by '^Anonymous" respecting
this vessel :
Mr. Peter Denny, of Dnin barton, bas constructed two fine screw-stearaers. They are
lying in the Clyde. Keport, of a somewhat nutlieutic kind, says one of them is partly
owned by the ** Chinese " and partly by individuals at Nassau, New Providence. It is
publicly announced that she is soon to be employecl on the line between Nassiiu and
Charleston. Her name is the Virginia. The term " Chinese" is in general use in the
huilding-yards of the Clyde and the Mersey to designate the confederat<?s, and the
*' Emperor of China " has no other signification, in this connection, than to personify
Jefferson Davis. The •' Chinese" have been striving very hard to purchase the sister-
vessel to the Virginia, through one of their agents at Liverpool, but Mr. Denny built
and lost' the Memphis, and he requires the " Celestials" to pay cash down before be
parts with his property.-
It need hardly be pointed out that, being " employed on a line," with
reference to a vessel, means being employed in carrying goods or pas-
sengers backward and forward between two or more given places.
There was, therefore, nothing in this letter, any more than in the facts,
to lead to any supposition on the part of the government that the Japan
was intended for a ship of war.
But let us follow the vessel. Having left the Clyde, the Japan first
made towards the Isle of Man, then suddenly changed her course, and
went north, through the North Channel, then down the west coast of
Ireland, passed Cape Clear, then steered eastward, and then made
straight for Ushant, Ushant light being the first light sighted. She
then kept on nnd off near the French coast.^
In the mean time a small steamer called the Alar, of London, having
taken the armament of the Georgia on board at Newhaven, as well as
some twenty to thirty men, who were to form an addition to her crew,
set sail from Newhaven on the 5th of April, having cleared out for
Alderney and St. Malo. Keeping clear, however, of both these places,
she steered straight for the west coast of France; which, however,
owing to accidents which happened to her machinery, she did not reach
till Wednesday, the 8th. The Georgia, was then sighted far away to the
westward, and the machinery of the Alar having again broken down,
the former vessel came and took her in tow, and took her into the nar-
row passage between Ushant and the main-land. There the transship-
ment of the guns and munitions of the Georgia from the Alar took
> United States DocnmeutB, vol. vi, p. 503.
»Ibid., vol. vi, p. 505.
3 British Appendix, vol. i, p. 412.
OPINIONS OF SIR ALEXANDER COCKBURN. 481
place, the whole being finally accomplished by the afternoon of Thurs-
day, the 9th, when the Georgia stood out to sea, while the Alar returned,
but her machinery having again broken down, she was obliged to put
into Plymouth.^
Prior to the Alar parting company with the Georgia, a Captain
Lamont, or Dupont, who had come out in the Alar, assumed the com-
mand of the Georgia, and, having called the crew together, informed
them that the vessel was not bound for Singapore, but was intended for
the confederate service, to " sink, burn, and destroy vessels belonging
to the United States." He then proposed to them to sign articles to
serve for thi'ee years. Part of the crew agreed to sign articles accord-
ingly, but some seventeen refused, were paid their wages then due, and
returned in the Alar.
In the mean time Mr. Dolan, the collector of customs at Newhaven,
had, the day after the Alar left Newhaven, written to the commission-
ers of customs respecting her :
CusTOM-HouSE, Xewhacenj April 6, 1863.
HoNORABLK SiRS : The steamship Alar, of London, 85 tone, owned by H. P. Maples,
sailed on Sunday moming, 5th instant, at 2 a. m.,bonnd, according to the ship's papers,
viz, the accompanying content, for Alderney and St. Malo. On Saturday, at midnight,
thirty men, twenty of whom appeared to bo British sailors, ten mechanics, arrived by
train. Three gentlemen accompanied them — Mr. Lewis, of Alderney, Mr. Ward, and
Mr. Jones. The men appeared to be ignorant of their precise destination ; some said
they were to get £20 each for the trip. A man, rather lame, superintended them.
Shortly after midnight a man arrived from Brighton on horseback, with a telegram,
which, for purposes of secrecy, had been sent there, and not to Newhaven, it is sus-
pected. Mr. Staniforth, the agent, replied to my inquiries this morning that the Alar
bad munitions of war on boai3, and that they were consigned by ^ to
a Mr. Lewis, of Alderney. His answers were brief, and with reserve, leaving no doubt
on my mind, nor on the minds of any here, that the thirty men and munitions of war
are destined for transfer at sea to some second Alabama. The private telegram to
Brighton intimated, very probably, having been reserved for the last hour, where that
vessel would be found. Whether the shipment of the men, who all appeared to be
British subjects, can, if it should be hereafter proved that they have been transferred
to a Federal or confederate vessel, be held as an infringement of the foreign-enlistment
act, and whether the clearance of the Alar, if hereafter proved to be untrue, can render
the master amenable under the customs- consolidation act, is for your consideration re-
spectfully submitted.
R. J. DOLAN, ColUctor?
Thas, Alderney was snpposed to be the place to which the Alar had
gone. Similar information appears to have reached Mr. Adams, though
we are not informed from what quarter. On the 8th of April he writes
to Earl Bussell :
Legation of the United States, London^ April 8, 1863.
My Lord : From information received at this legation, which appears entitled to
credit, I am compelled to the painful conclusion that a steam-vessel has just departed
from the Clyde with the int«nt to depredate on the commerce of the people of the
United States. She passed there under the name of the Japan, hut is since believed
t^o have assumed the name of the Virginia. Her immediate destination is the island
of Alderney, where it is supposed she may yet be at this moment. A small steamer
called the Alar, belonging to Newhaven, and commanded by Henry P. Maples, has been
loaded wij>h a large supply of ^ns, shells, shot, powder, &c., intended for the equip-
nient of the Virginia, ancl is either on the way or has arrived there. It is further al«
leged that a considerable number of British snbjects have been enlisted at Liverpool,
and sent to serve on board this cruiser.
8hoald it be yet in the power of Her Migesty's government to institnte some inquiry
i Dto the nature of these proceedings, in season to establish their character, if innocent,
or to put a stop to them, if criminal, I feel sure that it would be removing a heavy
Ivnrden of anxiety from the minds of my countrymen in the United States.
I pray, &c.,
CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS.*
^ British Appendix, vol. i, pp. 409, 412.
^ Blank in original.
3 British Appendix, vol. i, p. 405.
31 B
482 ARBITRATION AT GENEVA.
This was the first commuuication received by the goveniinent on the
subject of this ship. Not a moment was lost by the goverament in in-
stituting inquiries, and a letter was dispatched the same day to the
lieutenant-governor of Guernsey, Major-General Slade, from the home
office, to whose department the Channel Islands belonf: :
WiiiTEUALL, April J?, 1863.
Sir: I am directed by Sir George Grey to transmit to you herewith, as received
through the foreign officOi a copy of a letter from the United States minister at this
court, respecting a steam-vessel named either the Japan or the Virginia, reported to
have left the Clyde for Alderney, where she is to receive on board an armament con-
veyed to that island by a small steamer, the Alar, belonging to Newhaven, and is to
be eventually' employed in hostilities against the United States; and I am to request
that you will make immediate inquiry into the truth of the allegations contained in
that communication.
I have to call your attention to the statute 59 Geo. Ill, cap. 69. Section seven ap-
pears to be applicable to this case if the information which has been given to the
minister of the United States of America should turn out to be correct. In that case
the law-officers of the Crown should be instructed to take, without delay, the proper
proceedings authorized by the law of Alderuey, to enforce the provisions of the act io
question, and the officers of customs may be culled upon to assist, if necessary.
Sir George Grey will be glad to be inlorniert of the result of the in(iniry, and of auy
steps that may be taken in conseciuence.
I have, &c.,
H. WADDINGTOX.i
On receipt of this letter, General 81ade immediately sent a ship of
war to Alderney ; but as neither the J.ipan nor the Alar had gone to
Alderuey, of course neither of them was to be found there.
I should have thought it difficult under these circumstances to raise an
accusation of negligence against Uer Majesty's government. Neverthe-
less, the government are charged in the American case with neglect in
not having, on receipt of Mr. Adams'sletter of the 8th, dispatched ships
of war from Portsmouth and Plymouth to seize the two vessels. " The
sailing and the destination,'' it is said, ^^ were so notorious as to be the
subject of newspaper comment.'^ A single newspaper, the Liverpool
Journal of Commerce, of April 9, is referred to in support of this asser-
tion. I turn to it, and I find it there stated, indeed, that the vessel had
sailed, but ^^foTunknoicndestinationsJ"^ The only direction, therefore, given
to the government inquiry was Alderney. To that island it is said to
have been incumbent on the government to send ships of war from Ports-
mouth and Plymouth, because ^^ Alderney and the Channel Islands were
on the route to St. Malo and Brest ; and it is not at all probable,
scarcely possible, that the Alar and the Georgia w^ould not have been dis-
covered."^ There is in this statement a geographical confusion pardon-
able only in parties writing from the other side of the Atlantic. Brest
and St. Malo are on dififerent sides of the French coast, and at least one
hundred and fifty miles apart, and according as a vessel was boand to
the (me or the other, she would steer a totally dififerent course. Bat
still more startling is the statement that Alderney and the Channel
Islands would have been in the course of a vessel coming ronnd the
west coast of Ireland, and bound for Ushant and the northwest part of
the French coast, as the Georgia undoubtedly was. To a vessel coming
round Cape Clear, and intending to make her way towards the Bay of
Biscay, or to stand out into the Atlantic, Alderney would have been
from two hundred and fifty to three hundred miles ouf of her way !
Independently of the absurdity of supposing that the Georgia would
^ British Appendix, vol. 1, p. 4U1.
s Case of the United States, p. 398.
'' United States Documents, vol. ii, p. 668.
^ American Case, pp. 398, 399.
OPINIONS OF SIR ALEXANDER COCKBURN. 483
•
have come to Alderney at all — more especially as she would there have
been exposed to seizure, as being in a British port, if any suspicion
ahould havearisen respecting herreal character — when it was much easier
for her to take in her armament off the French coast, I must express
my surprise that it should be deliberately stated, by those who know
that she never went to or near Alderney at all, and that no other des-
tination of the vessel was known or surmised, to which ships could have
been sent after her, that, by reason that Earl Bussell, " instead, of di-
recting action to be taken by the navy, directed inquiries to be made
by the treasury and home office, the Georgia escaped.''
Is it to be said that without having the least idea of any other desti-
nation than Alderney, the government were to send ships of war in
all directions in quest of two vessels, neither of which could possibly be
known to any officer in IJer Majesty's navy ? Even had the spot where
the two vessels were to meet been known, it would scarcely have been
possible for a ship from Plymouth — much less from Portsmouth, which
is more than one hundred miles further off— to have overtaken them.
The letter from Mr. Adams was not written till the 8th, and would
appear, from Mr. Hammond's letter to that gentleman of the same date,
to have been received in the afternoon of that day. Had instructions
been telegraphed to Plymouth that afternoon, it would have taken some
short time to carry the orders into execution. Steamships are not ready
to start at five minutes' notice. From Plymouth to Ushant is some
one hundred and twenty miles ; and, on the 9tb, the Georgia had left
the French coast and was on her way upon the ocean. But for the
delay occasioned by the breaking down of the Alars machinery she
would have been gone several hours sooner.
There is a homely, but expressive, English saying, that '^ Any stick
serves to beat a dog with," but one must have a most determined in-
tention to beat the creature to make such a case as this a ground of
complaint.
It has been sought to fix the British government with the responsi-
bility for damage done by this vessel on the ground that, until the 23d
of June, Bold continued to be on the register as owner. It is true that
it was not until this date that Bold informed the collector of customs
that he had parted with the vessel, and returned the certificate of reg-
istry. No such consequence, however, as is contended for, at all follows.
The ownership of a British vessel may be transferred, though the evi-
dence of it, as afforded by the register, remains incomplete; and it
would be absurd to suppose th<at Mr. Bold, if the true owner, lent his
vessel to the confederate government, or failed to take care to be paid
for her before he parted with her. The delay in canceling the registra-
tion was, no doubt, for the purpose of delaying as long as possible the
disclosure of the real transaction.
Mr. Squarey, the Liverpool solicitor engaged for the United States,
being consulted on this point, gave the following very sensible advice:
It does not appear to roe the engagement of the crew can bo treated as an offense
against the act, becanse the only legal contract binding npon the crew was that ap-
pearing upon the articles. The men were not liable to do anything except what they
had agreed to do by the articles ; and from the statements of the men whom I saw, it
did not appear that they knew, when they shipped, that it was expected or intended
that they shonld serve on board a man-of-war or privateer. As regards the liability
of the British registered owner to make good to the owners of the American ressel
destroyed the loss sustained by them, I conceive it must depend upon the question
whether those in command of the vessel at the time can bo considered to have been the
agents of the British owner. If they were such agents, and there was any evidence to
show that the destruction of the American ship conid be considered as an act within
the scope of their authority, I have no doubt that the owners would be liable; but it
484 ARBITRATION AT GENEVA.
appears to nie that the circumstances to wliicli I have previously referred go very far
to rebut the presuDiption that such agency existed, aud to prove that, ia dcstroyiug
the American vessel, the officers and crew were acting, not for the British owner, but
for the government of the so-called Confederate States. In such ease I do not think
that any liability could be established against the British owner, for it is now well
established that the mere fact of being on the register of the ship does not involve
liability for the acts or engagements of the master and crew, and that such liability is
in fact a question depending upon express or implied agency in every case.
Although, therefore, I do not see how a British owner is to be made liable, there is,
in my opinion, a case which justifies the American Government in bringing the matter
before tne notice of the British government, and requiring explanations from that gov-
ernment of the circumstances under which a British vessel is found to be engage<l in
! the destructiozvof vessels belonging to American citizens.^
It appears to me, therefore, beyond all question clear that no charge
of negligence can by possibility attach to Her Majesty^s government in
respect of this ship. And I confess it was not without surprise that
I heard one member of this tribunal say that, but that Mr. Adams had
declared in favor of the British government on this occasion, he should
have been prepared to pronounce " a more severe" judgment. If such
views are to prevail, the resx>onsibility of neutrals will be a serious thing
indeed.
It only remains to be added in respect of this vessel that a prosecu-
tion was instituted by the government under the foreign-enlistment
act, against Jones and Highatt, two members of the firm of Jones &
Co., of Liverpool, by whom the men had been engaged to serve on board
the Japan, and as to whom it was alleged that they had engaged the
men for the purpose of their enlisting in the confederate service when
the true character of the vessel was declared. The case was tried before
me at Liverpool, when both defendants were found guilty by the jury,
but points of law were reserved involving considerable difficulty, par-
ticularly that the men, at the time they were engaged at Liverpool, were
not aware of the ulterior purpose which the defendants were alleged to
have had in view.
On the defendants being brought up for judgment, the defendants
having consented to abandon the points reserved, and to forego an in-
tended application for a new trial, an arrangement was come to between
the counsel for the Crown and the counsel for the defendants that a fine
of £50 should be imposed on each of them. The punishment might, at
first sight, appear inadequate, but looking to the legal difficalties, it
was, on the whole, I think, a prudent arrangement; it having been bet-
ter that the law should be vindicated, though with a less degree of
punishment, than that the chance of a defeat should be risked.
CASE OF THE snENANDOAH.
This vessel, originally known as the Sea King, was a screw-steamer
built at Glasgow in the year 1863, for the purpose of being
•n* 8bei>«.dMb. employed in the China trade.* She had been seen by Mr.
Dudley at Glasgow in 1863, who represented her as well adapted for war-
like purposes, and thought she was likely to be bought for such purpose
by the confederates.' But in this he was mistaken. She was bought
by private owners; ^fessrs. Robertson & Co., of London, acted as man-
aging owners."*
She had from the beginning two 12-pounder carronades, such as mer-
^British Appendix, vol. i, p. 428.
2 Ibid., p. 7^4.
3 United States Documents, vol. vi, p. 554.
* British Appendix, vol. i, p. 494.
OPINIONS OF SIR ALEXANDER COCKBURN. 485
chant-vessels are in the habit of carrying as signal-gans, but nothing
more.^
In November, 1863, she left London on a voyage first to New Zealand,
taking out troops for Her Majesty's government to Auckland, and from
thence to Hankow for a cargo of tea, and with the latter she returned
to London. She was a vessel built entirely for commercial purposes,
and was in no respect whatever adapted for war.
In September, 1864, she was sold by her owners, in the ordinary way
of business, to a Mr. Kichard Wright, a ship-owner of Liverpool. On
the 7th of October, 1864, Wright granted a certificate of sale to Mr. P.
S. Corbett, the master of the ship, empowering him to sell her within
six months from the date of the certificate, at any port out of the
United Kingdom, for a price not less than £45,000.^
After this the vessel cleared out, as for a trading voyage " to Bom-
bay, calling at any ports and places on the passage, and any other ports
or places in India, China, or Japan, or the Pacific or Atlantic Oceans,
trading to or from, as legal freights might offer, until the return of the
sliip to a final port of discharge in the United Kingdom or continent of
Europe ; the voyage not to exceed two years."^ A crew was hired, and
signed articles for the voyage in question, and the vessel sailed as if
upon it, without any suspicion on the part of the crew, or of any one
not in the secret, that she was intended for any other destination.
The vessel underwent no change prior to her leaving; no equipment
of her for the purpose of receiving any armament took place ; she re-
mained as she had been from the beginning, fitted for commercial pur-
])Oses only. She was wholly unadapted to receive guns. She had on
board only two small 12-pounder guns she had always had, such as
merchant-vessels of her class always carrj' as signal-guns. She had no
arms or munitions of war.
When afterwards examined at Melbourne by Captain Payne, the lat-
ter rei)orted that " everything indicated that she was nothing more than
an ordinary merchant-ship.'' He could not discover any magazine; there
•were no stands for small-arms, cutlasses, or pistols ; no shot-racks were
fitted, nor could he see any shell-room aloft. " There is nothing," he
says, "to protect her machines from shot and shell; in fact, her boilers
and the principal part of her machinery are above the water-line. Her
bankers certainly are between the machinery and the ship's side, but
from their small dimensions the3' would offer but small resistance to
shot. The most vulnerable part, viz, the boilers, is left quite unpro-
tected." * " I am altogether of opinion," adds Captain Payne, " that there
is nothing in her build, armament, (with the exception of two Whitworth
gnns,) and equipment that should call for more special notice than that
she is an ordinary merchant- vessel, armed with a few guns."
It is plain, therefore, that till the Whitworth guns in question were
put on board, there was nothing whatever on board the Sea King to at-
tract attention, or to excite the slightest suspicion about her. That this
-was so is shown by the fact that the crew fully believed that she was
really bound for the voyage to the East.
Bdt it appears that the Mr. Bichard Wright who had bought the
vessel was the father-in-law of Mr. Prioleau, the managing partner of
the firm of Fraser, Trenholm & Co., of Liverpool ; whereupon we are
gravely told, in the case of the United States, that " the acquisition, by
a near connection of a member of their firm, of a fast-going steamer,
^British AppeDclix, vol. i, p. 725.
3 Ibid., p. 495.
3Ibid.. p. 496.
• Ibid., p. iU7.
486 ARBITRATION AT GENEVA.
capable of being so converted, and the proposition to send her to sea in
ballast, with nothing on board but two mounted guns and a supply of
provisions and coal, ought, of itself, to have attracted the attention of
the British oiTicials; and that the omission to take notice of the fact is
a proof of want of the due diligence required by the treaty/'^
Not the slightest intimation, however, is given as to what notice
should have been taken, or what could possibly have been done. There
was nothing that could, in any way, have justified the detention of the
vessel. In the foregoing statement we have, therefore, as it seems to
me, an unwarrantable assumption.
The Sea King left the port of London on the 0th October, and pro-
ceeded to Madeira, where she arrived on the 18th.^ In the mean time a
small steamer called the Laurel had left Liverpool, having cleared for
Matamoras and Kassau. She took out cases marked as machinery ,3 but
in reality containing two 33-pounder Whitworth guns, and four 8-inch
smooth-bore guns of 55 huudred-weight each, together with shells,
small-arms, and ammunition for the use of the Sea King-
Mr. Dudley was somehow informed that the cases contained guns and
gun-carriages, and believing they were intended to be mounted on the
decks of the Laurel, wrote to Mr. Adams that he apprehended she was
intended as a privateer. At the same time he admitted that he had no
evidence to implicate her except the taking on the guns in cases.^ It is*
plain, therefore, that Mr. Dudley did not surmise any connection between
the two vessels, one of which was starting from London, the other from
Liverpool, and I am at a loss to see how any could possibly have been
surmised.
Lieutenant Waddell, the future captain of the Sea King, and the
other officers, and seventeen men who were to form part of her crew,
were also passengers in the Laurel.
Before the Laurel left Liverpool, Mr. Dudley began to suspect that
the guns put on board her were intended for another vessel, as they
were more in number than would be required for a vessel of her size;^
but he was evidently altogether without any definite information about
her.
The Sea King arrived at Madeira about the 18th of October; the
Laurel about the same time. The following day both vessels proc^sded
to some small islands called the Desertas, where the guns and warlike
stores intended for the Sea King were transferred to her from the Lau-
rel.® Either then, or prior to leaving England, Corbett, acting on the
power of attorney received from the owner, Wright, sold the vessel to
the confederate government. According to his account the sale took
place on the 19th.' On that day the captain and officers took posses-
sion of her as a confederate ship. Captain Corbett informed the crew
that he had sold the ship to the confederate government, that she was
henceforth to be a cruiser in their service, and that he had delivered her
up to them.
Every effort was made, by persuasion and offers of large bounties and
high wages, to induce the former crew to enter the confederate service
on board the vessel ; but, with the exception of two or three, all the
rest, forty-two in number, refused, and were conveyed in the Laorel to
» United States Cose, p. 113.
* British Appendix, vol. i, p. 485.
3 Ibid., p. 493.
■♦ United States Docuinent^s, vol. vi, p. 55G.
** Ibid., p. 558.
« IJritisb Appendix, vol. i, pp. 478-4^2, 48G-4'?9.
' Ibid., p. 481.
OPINIONS OF SIR ALEXANDER COCKHURN. 487
Teueriflfe, from whence they afterward returned to Loudon. Tbe con-
federate lia^ baving been hoisted on the Sea King, she cruised thence-
forward under the name of the Shenandoah.
It must be, indeed, a stern stickler for neutral responsibility who
could say that up to this point there had been anything for which blame
could be attributed to Her Majesty's government. Kot the slightest
suspicion had attached to this ship, which was only known as a
merchant-vessel, prior to her leaving England. But besides this, no
offense whatever had been committed against British law.
•The ship had not been either "fitted out," "equipped,'' or " armed,''
w ithin the United Kingdom or within Her Majesty's dominions. Built as
a merchant-vessel she had been sold, as she stood, to the confederate
government ; and neither by the municipal law of Great Britain, any
more than by that of the United States, nor by international law, was
such a sale in anj' way illegal.
The argument of the United States itself admits that " if the Shen-
aodoah at this point of her history stood alone, and there had been no
other cause of complaint against Iler Majesty's government, the United
States could not now hold Great Britain responsible for her original
escape and armament."
No question, therefore, can arise as to the responsibility of Great
Britain in respect of any damages done by this vessel prior to her arrival
at Melbourne.
The first that was heard of the Shenandoah by Her Majesty's govern-
ment was from a letter of the 30th of October from Mr. Grattan, the
British consul at Teneriflie. On the Laurel arriving at that place, the
master, J. F. Eamsay, on presenting himselfat the consular office, stated
tliat he wished to land 43 passengers, who were to proceed to England
by the next Liverpool steamer, and that these persons were the master
and crew of the British steamer Sea King, of London, which vessel had
been wrecked off the Desertas. The Laurel continued her voyage on
the 22d instant. The master, on getting up steam, and not before,
landed the above-mentioned seamen.
The master of the Sea King, P. S. Corbett, did not call at the consular
office, as is usual in such cases, either for the purpose of making a pro-
test or to claim assistance. Therefore, on the 25th instant, Consul
Grattan sent to desire his attendance, and demanded the certificate of
registry of his vessel, in pursuance of instructions contained in para-
graph jS^o. 13 of the board of trade instructions. On handing in his
certificate Corbett informed Mr. Grattan that his vessel had not been
wrecked, but that she had be^n sold in London, and delivered to her
owners on the high seas ; and that himself and his crew had landed
here for the purpose of returning to England as passengers in the West
Coast of Africa mail-steamer, due at the port on the 31st instant.
The consul, having been struck by the discrepancy between the state-
ments of the two masters, made inquiries of some of the former crew of
the Sea King, and having taken their depositions, and being of opinion
that they contained evidence sufficient to substantiate a charge against
the master, Corbett, of an infringement of the foreign-enlistment act,
sent him in custody to England, at the same time forwarding the depo-
sitions of the men in a dispatch to Earl Eussell.^
I will conclude the narrative as to what further happened in relation
to Corbett before I pursue the further history of the Shenandoah.
On the arrival of the depositions in England, the law-officers at first
• British Appendix, vol. i, p. 477.
488 ARBITRATION AT GENEVA.
advised that no prosecution conid be sustained against Gorbett, as all
the facts had taken place on the high seas, and a British ship on the
high seas could not properly be considered as " within Her Majesty's
dominions, or a place belonging to or subject to Her Majesty.''^ Two
further affidavits having been afterward furnished by Mr. Adams, of
men who had been engaged by the defendant in London, and who spoke
to language of a suspicious character then used by him, the law-officers,
on being again consulted, thought that there was sufficient evidence on
which to found a prosecution ; and they further thought that as the
ship had left the country as a JBritish ship, she might, prima faciei be
considered as such, that is, till a sale and transfer of property in her
was shown ; and that it might be deserving of serious consideration
whether her deck might not be considered as ^' a place belonging to Her
Majesty," within the language of the act.^ A prosecution against Cor-
bett was accordingly instituted by the government, for a breach of the
second section of the foreign-enlistment act, in endeavoring to procure
men to enlist and serve, or to embark and go out of Her Majesty's do-
minions to enlist and serve, in the confederate service. The case came
on before myself and a special jury, at Westminster Hall, in December,
I860. The witnesses for the prosecution were six sailors who bad
formed part of the crew of the Sea King, and who deposed that, after
Captain Corbett had informed the crew that he had sold the ship to the
confederate government, he endeavored to persuade the men to enlist,
pointingont to them the advantage of so doing in the way of pay and prize-
money. There was, however, considerable inconsistency in the evidence
of these men, some of them ascribing to the defendant what others put
into the mouth of Captain Waddell, and vice versa. The men appear
to have had a strong feeling against the captain, bj- reason of their in-
tended voyage to the east having come to an abrupt termination, and
to their not having received as much wages as they expected for the
time they had been out.
The first mate, the steward, and the chief engineer of the crew of the
Sea King, one of the crew of the Laurel, and two or three confederate
sailors who had joined the confederate ship, all of whom had witnessed
all that passed, denied positively that Corbett had taken any part in
persuading the men to sign articles, but attributed to Captain Waddell,
exclusively, the language which the witnesses for the prosecution had
represented as spoken by Corbett.
It having been objected on the part of the defendant that while, in
order to constitute an offense under the enactment in question, the act
complained of must have been done within Her Majesty's dominions,
what was here alleged to have been done by the defendant had taken
place in Spanish waters, it was answered by the solicitor-general that,
if the act had been done on board a British vessel, that would be suffi-
cient to satisfy the statute, and that, though he could not deny that a
sale of the vessel had taken place, yet that, so long as the British crew
remained on board, the vessel could not be considered as having been
delivered up to the purchasers, and must still be looked upon as a Brit-
ish ship. I wasy however, clearly of opinion that the defendant Corbett
having openly announced the sale of the ship, and that he had delivered
her over to Waddell, and the latter having assumed the command, and
with his officers taken possession of her, the delivery had been com-
pleted and the property effectually transferred. I, however, desired the
opinion of the jury on this point, as well as on the questions whether
^
> British Appendix, vol. i, p. 483.
a Ibid., p. 490.
OPINIONS OF SIR ALEXANDER COCKBURN. 489
the defendant bad endeavored to induce the men to enlist in the con-
federate service, as crew of the Sea King; and if so, whether, when he
engaged the men in London, he had the ulterior design of inducing
them to enlist when beyond the Queen's dominions. The jury thought
the evidence loo conflicting upon which to convict the defendant, and,
it being very doubtful whether the witnesses for the Crown were not
confounding what had been said by Waddell with what was said by
Corbett, I think the jury acted wisely on the whole in acquitting the
defendant.^
I have adverted to these circumstaBces in justice to the government
jmd the solicitor-general who conducted the prosecution. No public
prosecutor could have discharged his duty more honestly or zealously,
or with a greater desire to obtain a conviction if it could legitimately
and properly be done.
1 return to the Shenandoah. Nothing more was heard of her by Her
Majesty's government till she arrived at Melbourne on the
nrJL X' T lor.- At Melbourne.
25th ot Jaunaiy, I860.
Before relating the events which occurred during her visit at this
port, it may be well briefly to describe the locality, some knowledge of
which is necessary to a thorough appreciation of the facts. Port Philip,
at the northeasterly end of which Melbourne is situated, is a bay ot
irregular oval shape, some sixty or seventy miles in circuit, opening
into the sea by a narrow entrance to the southwest, called the Heads.
The harbor of Melbourne, situated as has been said at the opposite end,
is called Hobson's Bay, and forms the estuary of the Yarra-Yarra. Mel-
bourne itself is about two miles inland up the Yarra-Yarra; on either
side of Hobson's Bay are two suburbs of Melbourne, named respectively
Williamstown and Sandridge. They are each connected with the town
by a railway, and a steam-ferry runs between the two, from one railway
pier to another across the bay, which is here two and a half miles wide.
Williamstown is the place where shipping operations are for the most
part carried on, and where seafaring men principally frequent. It
should be added that the governor had, at the time of the arrival of
the Shenandoah, a small military force at his disposal, but no vessel of
war of any kind ; the Bombay, which is spoken of in the argument of
the United States as such, being merely a contract steam-packet belong-
ing to the Peninsular and Oriental Company, with a naval agent on
board in charge of the mails. The authorities were therefore depend-
ent upon the customs officers and the ordinary water-police for the sur-
veillance of the harbor.
Immediately on the arrival of the Shenandoah, her commander, Wad-
dell, wrote to Sir C. H. Darling, the governor, to announce his arrival :^
COXFEDERATE STATES STEAMER OV WAR ShENANDOAU,
Fort Philip, January 25, 1865.
Sir: I have the honor to announce to your excellency the arrival of the Confederate
States steamer Shenandoah, under my commandi in Port Philip, this afternoon, and
also to communicate that the steamer's machinery requires repairs, and that I am in
want of coals.
I desire your excellency to grant permission that I may make the necessary repairs
and supply of coals to enable me to get to sea as quickly as possible.
I desire'also your escellency*s permission to land my prisoners. I shall obsorvo the
neutrality.
I have, &c.,
J AS. J. WADDELL.
^See reports of the trial, printed in United States Dosumonts, vol. iv, pp. 618
etseq.
-Appendix to British Case, vol. i, p. 500.
490 ARBITRATION AT GENEVA.
The conduct of the governor and of the executive council of the colony
seems to have been marked by the most anxious desire to do what was
strictly right.
The commissioner of trade and customs was directed to communicate
with the commander of the Shenandoah in the name of the governor,'
requesting him to inform the government of Victoria of the nature and
extent of the repairs of which he stated his vessel to be in need ; and
informing him that permission would be granted for the Shenandoah to
remain in the w^aters of the colony a sufficient time to effect her repairs,
and to receive the provisions or tjiings necessary for the subsistence of
her crew — but not beyond what would be necessary for immediate use;
and that when the government of Victoria were in possession of the
nature and extent of the supplies and repairs which were necessary, he
should be informed of the time which his vessel would be permitted to
remain in the waters of the colony : and that, as to that part of his letter
which referred to prisoners, he must communicate to the government
the names of the prisoners, and any other particulars relating to them
which he might be willing to supply.
The application of Lieutenant Waddell to land his prisoners was also
directed to be communicated to the United States consul .
Mr. Blanchard, the consul of the United States at Melbourne, i)ro
tested against the Shenandoah being admitted to the privileges of a
belligerent, maintaining that, as she had been sold at sea to the confed-
erate government, a sale under such circumstances was unlawful; that,
being a I3ritish-built merchant-ship, she could not be converted into a
war- vessel of the Confederate States on the high seas, but only by pro-
ceeding to, and sailing in such a character from, one of the ports of the
confederacy ; and that " not being legally' a man-of-war, she was but a
lawless pirate, dishonoring the flag under which her status was to be
established and under which she decoyed her victims."
Having consulted the law-officers of the colony, who advised that the ves-
sel purported to be, and in their opinion should be treated as, a ship of war
belonging to a belligerent power, the governor and council decided that,
whatever might be the previous history of the Shenandoah, the govern-
ment of the colony was bound to treat her as a ship of war belonging
to a belligerent power.
It is clear that the law-officers of the colony were perfectly right.
Even had there been any foundation for the notion of Mr. Blanchard
that the sale of the vessel on the high seas was invalid, the Shenandoah
arrived at the colony as a commissioned ship of a belligerent power,
which, according to the usage of maritime nations, was a sufficient ground
for her reception as a vessel of war. It is to be observe that no ques-
tion can arise in respect of this vessel as to its having been the duty of
the British government to seize her in spite of the commission of the
Confederate States. She had neither been equipped, nor armed, nor
specially adapted, wholly or in part, for warlike use, in British territory,
nor was the sale of her to a belligerent on the high seas any violation
of the rights of Great Britain as a neutral. To have seized her would
therefore have been utterly unjustifiable.
A question, it appears, arose as to whether the officer in command
should not be required to show his commission, and the majority of the
council decided that there was no necessity for doing so. And nothing
having then occurred to lead to any doubt as to the vessel being com-
missioned by the confederate government, or as to the honor of the
* Appendix to British Case, vol. i, p. 511.
OPINIONS OF SIR ALEXANDER COCKBURN. 491
officer who commanded her, to have demaiided to see the commission be
professed to bear would bave implied an unwortby suspicion.
What followed is thus related in a narrative signed by the gentlemen
who were at that time chief secretary, minister of justice, commissioner
of trade and customs, and attorney-general of the colony :
On receiving the communicafeiou from the pjovernor, Lieutcuant WadcleU employed
Messrs. Langlands, Brothers & Co., irou-fouDders, of Melbonrne, to examine the vessel
and to undertake the repairs, and thej', on the 30th January, reported that it was abso-
lutely necessary to put the Shenandoah on the government slip, as the diver who in-
spected the vessel had reported that the lining of the outer stern-back was entirely gone,
and would have to be replaced ; and that, as three days would elapse before the vessel
was slipped, it would take ten days from date to accomplish the repairs.
It may bo here remarked that tJbe slip (termed the "government slip" in the report
of Messrs. Langlands, Brothers & Co.) was not in possession of, or under the control
of the government, the fact being that, although it was originally built by the govern-
ment, yet it had been for many years leased, and at that time was under lease to Mr. Enoch
Chambers.
This report was submitted to the commissioner of trade and customs, who wrote, by
fUrection of his excellency the governor, for a list of the supplies required for the im-
mediate use of the vessel, and stated that his excellency had appointed a board, con-
sisting of 3Ir. Payne, inspector and secretary of the steam navigation board ; Mr. Elder,
the superintendent of the marine yard at Melbourne ; and Mr. Wilson, the government
marine engineer, to go on board the Shenandoah, and to examine and report whether
that vessel was then in a fit state to go to sea, or what repairs were necessary.
Lieutenant Waddell furiiisbeil a list of the supplies ho required, and permission was
, given for the shipment on board of reasonable quantities of the supplies asked for.
The board appointed by his excellency had the vessel examined by a diver, and then
reported—
1st. That the Shenandoah w^as not in a fit state to proceed to sea as a steamship.
2d. That repairs were necessary.
3d. That the part or jiarts requiring repair being the inner stern-post bearing of the
screw-shaft, the extent of the damage could not be ascertained without the vessel
being slipped.
His excellency, en the receipt of this report, gave permission for the vessel to be
placed on the patent slip, and he requested the commissioner of trade and customs to
make arrangements for obtaining daily reports of the progress of repairs and provision-
ing of the Shenandoah, and directed every precaution to be taken against the pos-
sibility of the commander of that vessel in any way extending its armament, or
rendering the present armament more eticctive ; and these instructions were carefully
acted on.
On the 6th of February, 1865, an application was made for permission to land some
surplus stores from tho Shenandoah, which was refused on the advice of the attorney-
general.
The repairs of the Shenandoah not having been proceeded with, the commissioner of
trade and customs wrote on the 7th of February to Lieutenant Waddell, stating that
his excellency desired that a day should be named for proceeding to sea,: and that he
waa directed*^ to say that, after carefully considering the question of the position of
Great Britain as strictly neutral in the present contest, the use of appliances, the prop-
erty of the government, could not be granted, nor any assistance rendered by it, directly
or indirectly, toward effecting the repairs of the Shenandoah.
Lieutenant Waddell replied that he could not name a day for proceeding to sea tiU
the vessel was taken on the slip, when the injury could be ascertained, and the time
estimated for its repair, the recent gales having prevented him from lightening the ship
to the necessary draught preparatory to going on the slip, in which matter he had
been guided by those m charge of the slip. He hoped the weather would permit the
eDgineer in charge of the slip to take the Shenandoah on the slip the following morning.
The vessel was not hauled up on tho slip until the morning of the 10th, when the
board appointed by tho governor had another inspection, and they then reported as
follows :
Ist. That the lignum-vitai staves forming the bearing of the forward end of the outer
length of the screw-shaft were entirely displaced.
2d. That the inner stern-post bracket in which the staves of lignura-vitie were fitted,
forming also the support for the foremost end of the screw-frame, was fractured on the
starboard side to the extent of about 4 inches.
3d. That these repairs, necessary to render the steamship sea-worth}', could be effected
in or about five clear working days from that date.'
1 British Appendix, vol. v, p. 60.
492 ARBITRATION AT GENEVA.
It thus appears that on the 3d of February, the commissiouer of trade
UDd customs was instructed by the governor to make arrangements for
obtaining daily reports of the progress of the repairs and provisioning of
the Shenandoah, and communicated to him the information so obtained;
and to take every precaution in his power against the possibility of the
commander of that vessel in any degree extending his armament, or
rendering the present armament more effective.^
Thus matters stood when, on the 10th of February, the United States
consul wrote to the governor, inclosing a deposition on oath of one John
Williams, who had been a prisoner on board the Shenandoah, and who,
having been one of the crew of the ship D. Godfrey, captured by the Shen-
andoah, had escaped from the latter by swimming ashore on the 6 th.
In this deposition Williams stated that fifteen or twenty men had joined
the ship since her arrival in port, and were concealed in various parts of
her, and that three others, who were wearing the ship's uniform, had
also come aboard since her arrivfil.^ To this was added, on the 13th, the
affidavit of one Madden, another of the crew of the D. Godfrey, who
stated that *' when he left the vessel on the 7th, there were men hid in
the forecastle of the ship, and two working in the galley, all of whom
came on board the vessel since she arrived in the port ; and that the
officers pretended they did not know these men were hid."^
The proceedings of the governor and council on the 13th of February
are marked by the same attention to their duty in the matter as before,
as appears from the following minute of their proceedings: ^
The farther report of the board of snrvey on the Sheuaudoah, after viewing that
ve8sel on the slip, is submitted and considered.
His excellency states to the council that, in consequence of a letter which he had
received from the United States consul, dated the 10th instant, and inclosing a testimooT
on oath of one John Williams, he had deemed it his duty to refer it for the consideration
of the law-officers of the Crown ; as, presuming the statements therein contained to be
correct, it would appear that the commander ot the Shenandoah was taking advanta}:^
of the aid and comfort which had been afforded to him in this port to increase the
number of his crew by enlisting British subjects in contravention of the foreign-enlist-
ment act.
In consequence of this reference, the law-officers of the Crown had directed the at-
tendance of the man John Williams, and that he had, with other men, attended that
morning at the Crown law-offices, and had made statements to the effect that a namber
of men representing themselves to be Englishmen had gone on board the Shenandoah
since her arrival in this port, with the intention of Joining her, and were now concealed
on board.
The law-officers being of opinion that there was sufficient evidence to take steps for
prosecuting, had instructed the police to lay informations against these men for a mis-
demeanor, and to apply for a warrant for their apprehension.
On consultation with the council, it was not considered necessary by his oxcelleocy
to take any farther steps in the matter until the result of the police-officer proceedings
were known : but Mr. Francis is instructed again to inquire by letter when Iiieatenant
Waddell would be ready to proceed to sea.
A report from the detective police at Sandbridge, of this day's date, on matters re-
lating to the Shenandoah, is laid upon the table of the council ; and as from informft-
tion which had reached the government some suspicion had been attached to the move-
ments of a vessel called the Eli Whitney, now lying in the bay, the honorable thf
commissioner of trades and customs undertakes that her movements shall be c^rtfoIlT
wat<$hed.
The honorable the attorney-general then submits to his excellency depositions taken
on oath by eleven persons before the consul of the United States in Melbourne, which
depositions have been placed in his hands by the consul.
The Eli Whitney was watched accordingly, and if any int-cntiou oi
nsing her as a means of shipping the men had been entertained, it \ras
abandoned.
* Appendix to British Case, vol. i, p. 529.
« Ibid., p. COIJ. 3 Ibid., p. COH. Ibid., p 520.
OPINIONS OF SIR ALEXANDER COCKBURN. 493
Ou the 13tli of February a warrant was granted by a magistrate at
Williamstown, for the apprehension of a man known as James David-
son, or " Charley," who was stated to bo concealed on board the Shen-
andoah. The superintendent of police, who was charged with the exe-
cution of the warrant, went on board the ship, and Captain Waddell
not being on board, saw the officer in charge, told his business, and re-
({uested to see the man on board to execute his warrant. This was re-
fused. He showed his wfirrant, which the officer looked at, saying,
" That is all right, but you shan't go over the ship.'' The next morning
the police officer returned to the ship, and stated that information hav-
ing been sworn that persons had joined the vessel from Melbourne, and
were now on board, he had come with a warrant. Captain Waddell re-
plied, *'I pledge you my word of honor as an officer and a gentleman
that I have not any one on board, nor have I engaged any one, nor will
I while 1 am here.'' The superinten(Jent answered that he understood
that the persons he wanted were wearing the uniform of the Confeder-
ate States, and were working on board, but this Captain Waddell dis-
tinctly denied. The superintendent asked to go over the ship and see
if the men he wanted were on board. This being refused he said that
he must execute his warrant, even if he had to use force. To which
Waddell replied that he would use force to resist ; that he dare not
allow his ship to be searched; it was more than his commission w;as
worth ; and that such a thing would not be attempted to a ship of war
of any other country; that a great slight had been put upon him by
sending any one to the ship with a warrant. On the superintendent
again asking if the captain refused to allow him to look for the man for
whom he had a warrant, Waddell answered, that he ^'did refuse it, and
would fight his ship rather than allow it."^
The governor having called the attention of the council to the cir-
cnmstances, and to the necessity of considering what steps should be
taken, by the advice of the council directed the commissioner of trade
and customs to write to Captain Waddell, and to request him to recon-
sider his determination, and further to inform him that, pending his re-
ply, the permission which had been granted to him to repair and take
iu supplies had been suspended. The governor then issued a direction
tbat, on receipt of an instruction to that effect from the chief commis-
sioner of police, none of Her Majesty's subjects in the colony should
render any aid or assistance to, or perform any work in respect of the
so-called confederate steamship Shenandoah, or in launching the same.
The chief commissioner of police was instructed to send some police to
Williamstown, to take care that the direction above mentioned was
duly observed.*
On the 14th a letter was addressed to Captain Waddell, informing
him that the government conceived it had a right to expect that those
whp were receiving in the port the assistance claimed as a belligerent,
should not oppose proceedings intended to enforce the maintenance of
neutrality. He was therefore appealed to to reconsider his determina-
tion, and was informed that, pending his answer, the permission granted
to him to repair and take in supplies was suspended, and that Her
Majesty's subjects had been duly warned accordingly.^
Captain Waddell replied on the same day in the following terms :
I kave to inform his excellency the governor that the execntion of the warrant was
not refused, as no such person as the one therein specitied was on board ; but^'perrais-
^ British Appendix, vol. i, pp. 524, 525.
3 Ibid., p. 524.
3 British Appendix, vol. i, p. G43.
494 ARBITRATION AT GENEVA.
sion to Bearch the ship was refuBed. AccorrliDg to all the laws of nations, the deck of
a vessel of war is considered to represent the majesty of the country whose flag she
flies, and she is free from all executions, except for crimes actually committed on auore,
when a demand must be made for the delivery of such person, and the execution of the
warrant performed by the police of the ship. Our shipping articles have been shown
to the superintendent of police. All strangers have been sent out of the ship, and two
commissioned officers were ordered to search if any such have been left on board.
They have reported to me that, after making a thorough search, they can find no per-
son on board except those who entered this port as part of the complement of men.
I, therefore, as commander of the ship, representing my government in British waters,
have to inform his excellency that there are no persons on boanl this ship except those
whose names are on my shipping articles, and that no one has been enlisted in the serv-
ice of the Confederate States since my arrival in this port, nor have I in any way vio-
lated the neutrality of the port.
And I, in the name of the governnient of the Confederate States of America, hereby
enter my solemn protest against any obstruction which may cause the detention of thi»
ship in this i>ort.
I have, &e.,
JAS. J. WADDELL.
Lieutenant Commanding, Confederate States XaryJ
Hon. J AS. G. FiJANCis,
Comnilibioner of Trade and CuntomHj Melbourne.
It appears from a report of the superintendent of police that, in order
to carry out the instructions of the government, be proceeded to ^yi^
liamstown on the afternoon of the 14th, took possession of the slip on
which the Slienandoah was placed, and cleared the yiirdof the workmen
employed on the vessel. The effect of this determined course of pro-
ceedings soon showed itself. At about 10 p. m. four men were seen to
leave the vessel in a boat pulled by two watermen. They were pursued
by the water-police, and brought back to the superintendent. On being
questioned, they said the^' had been on board a few days, unknown to
the captain, and that as soon as he found they were on board, he or-
dered them to go ashore.^ The men were detained, and the American
consul was communicated with respecting them. Toward morning tug-
steamers came to tow the vessel off, but were ordered away by the su-
perintendent, who also took steps for preventing the vessel being fur-
nished with a pilot. The four men were taken before a magistrate on
the ICth. One, being an American, was discharged; the three others,
one of whom was the man Davidson, ('* Charlej','') were committed for
ttial. Two of them, after awaiting their trial in jmson for a month,
were sentenced to a further imprisonment of ten days ; the other, being
a mere youth, was, on that account, discharged.^ ^The vessel still re-
mained on the slip.
On the 15th of February, the lessee of the slip wrote to the chief sec-
retary, stating that his manager had informed him that should a gale of
wind occur, he would either be compelled to launch the ship, or run a
great risk of her sustaining serious damage in consequence of her un-
safe position on the cradle.^ This being so, and all motive for searching
the ship being now at an end, the man against whom the warrant had
been directed having been taken, and there being no reason for suppos-
ing that there were other Melbourne men secreted in the vessel, it was
thought advisable that the order suspending the permissioa to repair
should be revoked, and the necessary repairs to the ship be allowed to
be completed, the commander being informed that he was expected to
use every dispatch in getting to sea by the time previously fixed.
Captain Waddell having written to complain of the ship having been
seized, was informed, in reply, that the ship had not been seized, but
^Britsh Appendix, vol. i, p. 644.
2 Ibid., p. 527.
^ Ibid., vol. V, p. fi2.
* Ibid., vol. i, p. 52H.
OPINIONS OF SIR ALEXANDER COCKBURN. 495
«
that further progress witli the repairs had been arrested by reason of his
refusal to allow the ship to be searched. He was also reminded of the
four men having been canght leaving the ship, notwithstanding his state-
ment that there was no stranger on board ; but he was at tlie same time
informed that, as the man against whom the warrant had been issued
was now in custody, and he (Captain Waddell) had given his assurance
that no person other than those on her shipping articles were now on
board the ship, the work might proceed. In acknowledging this com-
munication Captain Waddell took the opportunity of observing as fol-
lows, with reference to the four men :
The four men alluded to in your communication are no part of this vessel's comple-
ment of men ; they were detected on board by the ship's police after all strangers were
reported out of the Tessel, and they were ordered and sent out of the vessel by the
ship's ]K>lice immediately on their discovery, which was after my letter had been dis-
patched informing his excellency the governor that there were no such persons on
board. These men were here without my knowledge, and I have no doubt can be
properly called stowaways, and such they would have remained but for the vigilance
of the ship's police, inasmuch ns they were detected after the third search, but in no
way can I be accused, in truth, of being cognizant of an evasion of the foreign-enlist-
ment act. ^
On the evening of the 15th, the repairs having been completed, the
vessel was launched from the slip and anchored in the bay, where she
proceeded to reship her stores and coal, of which latter article she was
allowed to take in a further supply of 2/50 tons. ^
She finally quitted Port Philip on the morning of the ISth of Feb-
ruary.
Blame has been cast on the governor for having allowed the repairs
of the vessel to be completed and the vessel to be launched, or coal to
be supplied to her, in consequence of the attitude of defiance assumed
by Captain Waddell in refusing to suffer his ship to be searched.
The position was, however, an embarrassing one.
It was very doubtful how far the police officer, after having received
the word of honor of Captain Waddell, as an officer and a gentleman,
that the man against whom he had a warrant was not on board, had
done right in insisting on searching the ship, and in threatening to use
force in order to execute the warrant. The position taken by Captain
Waddell that a ship of war of another nation is not subject to local ju-
risdiction is undoubtedly true. Upon a request of Sir C. Darling to be
informed as to the propriety of executing a warrant under the foreign-
enlistment act on board a confederate ship of war, the law-officers of the
Crown, on b^ing consulted, advised as follows:
It appears to us that, in the circumstances stated, his excellency the governor acted
with propriety and discretion ; and there does not appear to us, at present, to be a
necessity for any action on the part of Her Migesty's government.
With respect to his excellency's request, that he may receive instructions as to the
propriety of executing any warrant under the ioreign -enlistment act on board a con-
federate (public) ship of war, we are of opinion that, in a case of strong suspicion, he
ought to request the permission of the commander of the ship to execute the warrant ;
and that, if this request te refused, he ought not to attempt to enforce the execution ;
but that, in this case, the commander should be desired to leave the port as speedily
as possible, and should be informed that he will not be re-admitted into it.^
There can be no doubt as to the soundness of this advice. While a
ship of war is thus exempt from local jurisdiction, the right of the local
authority to withhold the accommodation of the port is equally un-
doubted ,' and the exercise of this power, applied here in the first in-
1 British Appendix, vol i, p. 646.
- Ibid., vol. v, p. 85.
-Appendix to British Case, vol. i, p. 55c?.
496 ARBITRATION AT GENEVA.
stance, might no doubt have been ' prolonged. Bat, the honor of the
commander of the ship having been pledged, oaght the search of the
vessel to have been further insisted on f By the comity of nations the
word of a commissioned officer is held to be sufficient guarantee for the
truth of anything to which it is officially pledged. The rule is a sound
one. The best security for honorable conduct is unhesitating confi-
dence whenever honor is pledged. It is of infinitely greater moment
that such a rule should be maintained than that a ^^ Charley^ should
be arrested and undergo a month's imprisonment. Any vaporinjr
language, or, in transatlantic phrase, '' tall talk" of Captain Waddell
might be excused owing to the impropriety of the police-officer's threat
of using force to search the ship under his command.
It is true that the fact to which the word of the commander has been
pledged turned out to. bo otherwise. But Captain Waddell explained
this by saying that the men had secreted themselves in the bottom of
the vessel, and had only been discovered on a third search. Now it is
well known that men do contrive to secrete themselves in ships so as
to elude search. A striking instance occurred in the case of the United
States ship the Kearscarge. When that ship left Cork in November,
1863, sixteen men contrived to hide themselves in her, nor was their
presence in her known to Captain Winslow, her commander, till the
day after the vessel had gone to sea, notwithstanding that search had
been made, and other men, found concealed on board, had been sent
out of the ship just before her departure.^ It should be added that
Williams and Madden having stated in their depositions that certain of
the subordinate officers of the ship had been aware of the presence of
^'Charley" in the forecastle of the ship, these officers immediately pub-
lished in the Melbourne Argus declarations signed by them, denying
in the most positive terms the statements affecting them. Sir }2ouude]l
Palmer x>uts the pertinent question : ^^ Can it be imputed as a. want of
due diligence to the government of Melbourne (whose good faith and
vigilance had otherwise been so manifestly proved) that although not
entirely satisfied with Captniu Waddell's demeanor or conduct, they
accepted the solemn assurances of not one, but several, officers of the
same race and blood, and with the same claims to the character ot
gentlemen as the officers of the United States f "
The matter was further complicated by the fact that the owner of the
slip had reported that the position of the vessel on the cradle was one
of danger; and that, if a gale of wind should arise, a disaster would
probably ensue. It is obvious that, if such a thing had happened it
would have been very awkward for all parties. The wisest thing, there-
fore, as it appeared to the governor and his council, was to allow things
to be completed and to get rid of this unpleasant visitor as early as pos-
sible. That the conduct of Captain Waddell in augmenting bis crew
from the colony, as it afterward turned out that he did, in spite of his
solemn promise to observe neutrality in this respect, was conduct dis-
graceful in an officer and a gentleman, there can be no donbt ; but, as I
have before observed, no governor or other authority can be blamed for
trusting to the word of any one bearing the commission of an officer. I
am bound to respect, but I certainly cannot share, the opinion of some of
my colleagues that Sir C. Darling showed any indulgence to the com-
mander of the Shenandoah, in further extending to him the privileges of a
belligerent, inconsistent with what, as the governor of a neutral govern-
ment, he was fully empowered and entitled, in theexerciseof his judgment
^ See United States Docaments, vol. ii, p. 429.
OPINIONS OF SIR ALEXANDER COCKBURN. 497
and discretion, to extend. Still less can T think that, even if there was
any error of judgment in this resi)eet, and the governor of Melbourne
was, under the circumstances — as I heard it two or three times said in
the course of the discussion — too civil (" trop poli ") to Captain Waddell,
that the British nation is therefore to incur a liability to a claim of
some $6,000,000. If such a conclusion is to be arrived at upon such
facts, I shall be half disposed to agree with M. Staempfli, that there is,
indeed, no such thing as international law, but that we are now creating
it for the first time.
I pass on to another subject of complaint, namely, the
supply of coal which the Shenandoah was allowed to receive '"'^
and which is said to have been excessive — an assertion which, I confess,
I have heard with no little surprise. Jt is true that the Shenandoah
still had on her arrival at Melbourne, if reliance is to be placed on a
journal kept by a midshipman on board, 400 tons of coal in her bunkers ;
it is true that she was there allowed to take in 250 tons more.
But international law, as we have seen, imposes no limitation on the
quantity of the supplies which a belligerent vessel may obtain in a neutral
port. The only restriction in this case would therefore arise from the gov-
ernment regulation that no vessel should be allowed to take more than
sufficient to convey her to her nearest port. Now the nearest port of
the country of the Shenandoah was some thirteen thousand to fourteen
thousand miles from Melbourne ; and all the coal which could possibly
have been stowed in the vessel would have fallen infinitely short of
what she must have consumed on such a voyage if she had had recourse
to her steam-power. It is true w^ are told that she was an excellent
sailer. Mr. Evarts informed us, I believe, on the authority of a mid-
shipman's journal, afterward published under the title of "The Cruise
of the Shanandoah,'^that her speed under canvass was at times equal to
sixteen knots an hour ; but it did not occur to that distinguished counsel
to tell us how the governor and his council could possibly know that
fact, unless, indeed, they were to know it by intuition. Although, from
the vessePs build and appearance, she migiit be thought likely to be a
fast vessel, all they knew of her was that she was a screw-steamer,
adapted to sail or steam.
The argument that a vessel is not to be allowed coal because she is
not likely to use it, strikes me, I must say, as a very singular one. If
she does not use it, what harm can arise to any one from her having it on
board ? " Yes, but," says Mr. Evarts, " this coal was to enable her to
have an advantage over the whalers when among the ice.'' But here
we must have recourse again to the intuitive powers of the governor
and his council. For how else, in the name of common sense, were they
to know that the intention of Captain Waddell was to go among the
icebergs in pursuit of the whaling- vessels? Captain Waddell knew his
business too well to let his intentions in this respect be known. Nor is
it at all reasonable to say that, because a vessel can both sail and steam,
she is not entitled to have whatever is necessary for navigation in both
forms. The government regulations, which allow a vessel to have the
quantity of coal necessary to take her to the nearest port, make no dis-
tinction (any more than does international law) between vessels depend-
ing wholly upon steam, and others navigating both by steam and sail.
The regulation must be taken to have reference to the quantity of coal
which would be required to take the vessel to her nearest port, if she
had to depend on steam alone.
It would be absurd to suppose that, in every case, the local authority
is to enter upon a nice calculation of the sailing power of the particular
32 B
498 AKBITRATION AT GENEVA.
vessel, and allow a {greater or less qnantity of coal according to the
estimate that may be formed of the rate of speed under canvas.
A vessel is entitled to the advantage of all her motive-power, however
derived. Either may fail. A vessel under sail may carry away her
masts. In this instance, had the Shenandoah been going homeward
this might have happened when she was thousands of miles from home.
It seems to me, therefore, that it-. was not a question for the local gov-
ernment whether this vessel was a good sailer or not. The only ques-
tion was, what amount of coal she was at liberty to have according to
the regulation. Kefennng to that, and looking to the immense distance
between her and her nearest port, no one, as it seems to me, can reason-
ably say that she was allowed a single ton too much.
Mcu,onr«o «»,,-»■ I^iit it is said that by taking in coal at Melbourne, with
ofauviioiMrar....... ^],g ultcrior purposc of making war on the whaling- vessels
of the United States, this vessel was enabled to make the port of Mel-
bourne a " base of naval operations."
As I have already observed, when the law on this subject was under
discussion, the application of such a rule in favor of the United StatCi^
to the prejudice of Great Britain would be a flagrant injustice, seeinfr
that, as 1 then showed, ships of war of the United States obtained
many thousand tons of coal, under exactly the same circumstances, that
is to say, when they had particular " naval operations ^ in immediate
view. If this doctrine is to hold, every time a vessel, having a partic-
ular belligerent purpose in view, takes in coal, and proceeds on sach
purpose, the i)ort will be at. once converted into a base of naval opera-
tions. The same reasoning would of course apply, and in the same
degree, to repairs.
This proposition is, to my mind, utterly unreasonable, as being alto-
gether inconsistent with any idea that ever has been, or properly can
be, attached to the term *' base of operations ;" and is, moreover, in
the most flagrant degree unjust, if it is to liave the eil'ect of impos-
ing on the neutral an}' responsibility' to the other belligerent. For it is
obvionsly inconsistent with common justice that the neutral state shall
sufier (or that to which it is not only no party, but of which it has also
no knowledge. By the common practice of nations, as well as by the reg-
ulations of the government, a belligerent vessel is allowed to have the
benefit of necessary repairs, and to take a supply of coal without the
local government being entitled to inquire into her ulterior destination.
No such inquiry is prescribed by the regulations in question, or by those
made by any other nation ; nor has any publicist ever suggested that
such a proceeding should be adopted. No such inquiry could, with pro
priety, be made ; nor could the commander of the ship be called ujion
to answer it if made. The knowledge of his intended course might
expose him to the attack of an enemy. No such question, so far as 1
am aware, was ever put to a belligerent vessel during the whole course
of the war. None such was ever put to a ship of the United States
when applying for coal at a British port. This being so, to say that,
the local government being in ignorance of the destination of the ves-
sel, a responsibility is to be incurred because the belligerent, ia obtain-
ing this accommodation, has an ulterior operation in view, as to which,
by some violent distortion of language, the port may be said to be thus
rendered a base, but of which ulterior operation the neutral knows
nothing, appears to me to be an outrage not only on the first principles
of justice, but also upon the plainest dictates of common sensa
Thus far I am unable to discover anything but a desire on the part of
the local government to comply with the Queen^s regulations, and Xo
OPINIONS OF SIR ALEXANDER COCKBURN. 499
discharjife their duty, faithfully and conscientiously, in preventing any
breach of neutrality on the part of the commander of the Shenandoah
in the enlisting of men ; nor does it appear to me that any blame can
reasonably or Justly attach to them in respect of permitting necessary
repairs to be done to the ship, or as to the time allowed for that pur-
pose, or as to the quantity of coal which the vessel was suffered to take
on board.
The only question which presents any real difficulty is whether suffi-
cient care was exercised to prevent men from enlisting in the Shenan-
doah immediately prior to her departure.
For, it is an undoubted fact that, on the night before the vessel left,
which it will be remembered was on the morning of the 18th, a consid-
erable number of men contrived to get on board and sailed away in the
Shenandoah, as part of her crew.
In addition to the suspicious circumstances connected with the secre-
tion of the man " Charley" and the other three men, it appears that a
detective named Kennedy, having been directed to make inquiries, on
the 13th of February, reported as follows :
That twenty men have been discharged from thd Shenandoah since her arrival at
this port.
That Captain Waddell intends to ship forty hands here, who are to he taken on
board daring the night, and to sign articles whea they are outside the Heads.
It is stated that the captain wishes, if possible, to ship foreign seamen only, and aU
Cnclishmon shipped here are to assume a foreign name.
McGrath, Finlay, and O^Brien, three Melbourne boarding-house keepers, are said to
be employed in getting the requisite number of men, who are to receive £6 per month
wages, and £8 bounty, &g.
Peter Kerr, a shipwright, living in Railway Place, Sandridge, stated about a fort-
night ago, in the hearing of several pcrsous, that Captain Waddell otlered him £17 per
month to ship as carpenter. A waterman named McLaren, now at Saudrid;;e, is either
already enlisted, or about to be so.
The detective has been unable, up to the present, to collect any reliable information
as to whether ammunition, &c., has been put on board the Shenandoah at this port, or
w^hether arrangements have been made with anv i>erson for that purpose.
I). S. KENNEDY,
First-class Detective.^
The superiutendent, in forwarding this report, added the following
statement :
Mr. Scott, resident clork, has been informed — in fact he overheard a person repre-
sented as an assistant purser state— that about sixty men engaged here were to be
shipped on board an old vessel, believed to be the Eli Whitney, together with a quan-
tity of ammunition, &c., about two or three days before the Shenandoah sails. The
former vessel is to be cleared out for Portland or Warruambool, but is to wait outside
the Heads for the Shenandoah, to whom her cargo and passengers are to be trans-
ferred.
Hereupon, the commissioner of trade and customs undertook, by
the desire of the fjovernment and council, that the Eli Whitney should
be watched, and that vessel was watched accordingly.
Notwithstanding that the foregoing report of the detective Kennedy
appeared to point to specilic facts, and the police were on the lookout
to detect any attempts to enlist men, nothing of a definite or certain
character came to light. In the report afterward made by the minis-
ter of justice, the attorney-general of the colony, the chief secretary',
and the commissioner of customs, which has been before referred to,
it is stated that —
Whilst the Shenandoah was in port, there were many vague rumors in circulation
that it was the intention of a number of men to sail in her; but althouj^h the police
Authorities made every exertion to ascertain the truth of these rumors, yet (with the
> British Appendix, vol. i, p. 523.
500 ARBITRATION AT GENEVA.
exception of the four men alreJidy alluded to) nothing sufficiently definite to justify
criminal proceedinjijs could bo ascertained ; indeed, at the best, these rumors justified
nothing more th<an Ruspieion, and called only for that watchfulness which the <];oyem-
ment exercised to tho fullest extent in its power. It was not until after the Shenan-
doah had left the waters of Victoria that the government received information con-
firming in a manner the truth of these rumors. ^
On tbo 16th, (as appears from a report of the chief coznmissiouer of
police on this subject, made in October last,)^ representations were
again made to the government that the foreign-enlistment act was be-
ing violated, and the police were instructed to use their utmost efforts to
prevent it. Nothing, however, appears to have occurred on that day.
But about 5 o'clock on the afternoon of the 17th, a man of the name
of Forbes came to the American consul, Mr. Elanchard, and informed
him that at 4 o'clock that afternoon he had seen, at the pier at Saiid-
ridge, five men, most of whom, if not all, were British subjects, and
that one of them had told him that they and others were goiug on board
a bark called the Maria Boss, then lying in the bay, and were to join
the Shenandoah when she was out at sea, and that boats from the
Maria Boss were to come for them at 5 o'clock. ^
The consul thereupon took Forbes to the office of the Crown solicitor;
but, according to the statement of the consul made to the governor on
the ensuing day, the Crown solicitor refused to take the information,
and the consid further complained that the language and manner of
that officer in doing so had been insulting to him. The Crown solicitor.
however, disclaimed any intention of giving offense to the consoJ. a*
appears from the letter of the private secretary of the governor to Mr.
Blanchard, the consul, which is as follows:
Febbuary 21, I66r».
Sir : I am desired by his excellency the governor to acquaint you that he receive^}
your letter of the 18th instant in tho afternoon of that day, Saturday, and that on Mon-
day, the UOthf he caused it to be referred, through the honorable the attorney-genenl.
to the Crown solicitor, for any explanation he might wish to offer.
2. After stating that it was only in consequence of his accidentally returning to hi*
office at half past 5 p. ni.^ after it had been closed for the day, that* the interview be-
tween you and himself occurred at all, Mr. Gnrner states that he informed you that,
not being a magistrate, he could not take an information, and adds that b«^ was ins
hurry to save a railway train, and therefore left more suddenly than he otherwi""*-
should have done; but he positively asserts that neither in manner nor language did
he insult you.
3. His excellency feels sure that the Crown solicitor's tone and manner have been
misapprehended, and confidently assures you that there was no intention on the part
of that officer to fail in the respect due to your position as tlie consul of the Tnited
States of America.**
What occurred after the consul left the Crown solicitor's oflQceistobe
found in the statement of a Mr. Lord, an American gentleman residing
at Melbourne, made for the use of the consul, Mr. ]^rd having accom-
panied that gentleman in his endeavors to secure the arrest of the men.
Mr. Lord states as follows :
We left and went first to the office of the chief commissioner of police; and, not fiail-
ing either him or Mr. Lyttleton in, we drove to the houses of parliament, and, on ^'D^^
ing your name to the attorney-general, he at once came out and asked us into the
side- room, lie patiently listened to all you had to say, and then suggested that if too
would place the matter in the shape of an affidavit he would lay it beiore his colleaj:a<^>
that a verbal statement was not sufficient for the government to proceed upon. We
then left and drove to the office of the detective police, and saw Mr. Nicholsou, ihf
chief, who heard the man's statement in full; but, as he could not act without a war-
rant, advised us to go to the police magistrate, Mr. Sturt, and get a warrant; theo he
would at once act upon it. Leaving there, we went to the residence of Mr. Start, in
* — ■ ■ ~
1 British Appendix, vol. i, p. 62.
»Ibid., p. I'^l.
'Ibid., p. 616.
^bid., p. 619.
OPINIONS OF SIR ALEXANDER COCKBURN. 501
Spencer street, who received you very politely, listened to what you had to say, exam-
ined the man, hut stated that he could not take the responsihility of j^rantiii^ a war-
rant on the evidence of this man alone, and advised your going to Williainstown, to
Mr. Call, who perhaps would he in possession of corroborative testimony through tlie
water-police. We then left, it being about half past 7, and j'ou, finding such a disin-
clination in any one to act in the matter, decided to take the deposition yourself and
send it to the attorney-general, leaving it to the government to take such action on it
as it might deem proper. Going to your consnlate, the deposition was taken and a
copy inclosed to the attorney- general, with a request for me to deliver it.
I took it to the houses of parliament, which I found closed; and it being then late,
(about 9,) I decided it was too late to stop the shipment of the men, as we understood
the vessel was to leave at 5, and I went home and returned the letter to you on Sunday
morning. Previous to going home, however, I again went to the detective oflfice, saw
Mr. Nicholson, told him how you had been prevented from getting the evidence before
the government in the shape they required it. He expressed his regret, but could not
i»ct in so important a matter without a warrant.*
From the foregoing statement it appears that it was suggested by the
attorney -general to the consul to embody the matter of his communica-
tion in the shape of an affidavit. This the consul, having the power to
take affidavits, could readily have done, in which case the responsibility
of further action would have rested with the colonial authorities. In-
stead of this the consul proceeded to the office of the detective police,
but, as the chief officer could not act without a warrant, he very prop-
erly advised Mr. Blanchard to proceed to the residence of Mr. Sturt, the
police magistrate, to procure a warrant. This accordingly Mr. Blanch-
ard did, but it appears that Mr. Sturt, having heard the statement of
the man Forbes, was not satisfied with it or disposed to act on his un-'
supported testimony. He therefore declined to grant the warrant, but
advised that the consul should proceed to Williamstown, to Mr. Call,
the head of the water-police, who w^ould probably be able to procure
evidence of a more conclusive character.
It being by this time almost 7 o'clock, the consul decided upon doing
i^hat the attorney-general had desired him to do some two hours before,
namely, take the deposition himself, and dispatch it by Mr. Lord to the
attorney-general, leaving it, as Mr. Lord says, to the government to take
such action as it might deem iiroper. The consul himself proposed to
follow Mr. Sturt's advice, and proceeded to Williamstown; but we learn
from his own statement that when Forbes, his informant, " found he had
to go among his acquaintances, he was afraid of bodily harm, and re-
fused to proceed.'^
In the mean time Mr. Lord proceeded with the deposition taken at the
consulate to the house of parliament to find the attorney-general, but,
on arriving there, found the house was up, and it being then about 9
o'clock, concluded it was too late to stop the shipment of the men, as it
had been understood the vessel was to leave at 5, so Mr. Lord gave the
matter up, and went quietly home* '
I am at a loss to see wherein it can be said that there was here negli-
gence on the part of any one, unless it maj' have been on that of Mr.
liord, who, having undertaken to deliver Forbes's deposition to the at-
torney-general, left the task he had undertaken incomplete, because he
did not succeed in finding that officer at the only place where he sought
him. But, in truth, the whole matter becomes perfectly immaterial from
the fact that what was desired to be done had reference solely to the pre-
venting of the men from being taken off to the Maria Boss by the boats
of that vessel. But, as it turned out, no intention whatever existed of
conveying the men to the Shenandoah by means of the Maria Ross, or, if
such intention ever did exist, it was afterward abandoned. No boats of
* British Appendix, vol i, p. 619.
« Ibid., p. 587.
502 ARBITRATION AT GENEVA.
that vessel came to take the men off, and she left the next morning opon
her own destination. But, as showing the anxiety of the local author-
ities to prevent men from joining the Shenandoah, it should be men-
tioned that it appears from the report of the detective officer subse-
sequently employed to make inquiry on the subject that the Maria Ro&s
was searched to see that no men for the Shenandoah were on board of
her, both before she left and again when off the Heads, that is, before
she finally quitted the bay.^
As has, however, been said, there can be no doubt that men did con-
trive to get on board the Shenandoah late that night under cover of the
darkness. It appears from the statement of the consul that one Hob-
bins, a master-stevedore, having observed boats taking off men with
their luggjige from the pier at Sandridge, went up to the American con-
sulate about 11 o'clock at night, and gave information to Mr. Blanchard
of what was going on. Mr. Blanchard, however, did not think himself
called upon to repair to the spot, or deem it necessary to call upon the
police to take any steps to prevent the men from being conveyed to the
Shenandoah. He contented himself with telling Ilobbius "that Mr.
Sturt, the police magistrate, had told him the w^ater-x)olice were the
proper persons to lodge any information with," and that '' as a good
subject, he (llobbins) was bound to inform them of any violation of law
that came under his notice.''^ This Kobbins promised to do, and to con-
vey a message from Mr. Blanchard to the police.
Thus the interests of the American Government were transferred bj
their proper representative, who no doubt went quietly to bed, hoping
for the best, to llobbins, the stevedore, who, however, seems to have
been, *'as a good subject," more zealous in the maintenance of neutral-
ity than the consul, for it appears that Bobbins actually went to Will-
iamstown and gave information to the police. He crossed over to Will-
iamstown, however, only in time to see the last boat-load going toward
the ship. In the mean time, the water-police having heard reports of
what was likely to take place, were out in the bay in their boat ; hut
Williamstown, on the opposite side of the bay, being the principal ship-
ping-place, and the place Irom which men would be the most likely to em-
bark, their attention had to be directed to that quarter ; and it would
seem that when they approached the pier at Sandridge, from which the
men were putting off, the latter secreted themselves in some rough wood
in the immediate vicinity, called scrub, and, as soon as the police-boat
had gone in another direction, slipped off' in watermen^s boats, and man-
aged to reach the Shenandoah unseen by the police. They were seen
by two constables who were successively on duty at this spot, who
must, one would suppose, have been pretty well aware of what was
going on, as the men had their luggage w ith them, and at that hour of
the night could have had no business on board the Shenandoah ; besides
which, two American officers, one in uniform, the other in plain clothes,
were o the pier directing the embarkation of the men;^ but neither of
these constables did anything toward preventing the men from getting
off.
It is i>ossible that, not having any warrant for the apprehension of the
men, they did not think they had any power or authority to detain them;
or, the numbers being formidable and the place lonely, they may have
thought it wiser to abstain from interfering. By the time Kobbina
arrived at Williamstown and gave information of what had occurred,
1 British Appendix, vol. i, p. 121
« Ibid., vol. i, p. 5b7.
3 Ibid., pp. 551, 553.
OPINIONS OF SIR ALEXANDER COCKIUJRN. 503
the last boat-load of men must have been already on board ;^ and the
police were powerless to act without orders from the authorities, which
would have involved a forcible search of the ship, and which, therefore,
the latter could not properly have given.^
I will not go to the length of saying that, in mj' opinion, the police
Tvere on this occasion as vigilant and active as they might have been.
There was reason to suspect the officers of the Shenandoah of a design
to recruit their crew from the port ; and as that purpose had so far been
prevented by the lookout kept in respect of the two ships, the Eli
Whitney and the Maria Eoss, suspected of being intended to take the
men to the Shenandoah when outside the waters of the colony, it was not
unlikely that, on the eve of the ship's departure, some attempt would
be made by the men who wished to ship in her to get on board. The
police had received instructions to use the utmost vigilance to prevent
anything of the kind being done, but they appear to have failed to carry
out their instructions at a critical moment. A few resolute officers, sta-
tioned on the two piers of Williamstown and Sandridge, would probably
have prevented the men from embarking, or deterred the watermen from
conveying them to the ship. But the governor and council acted
throughout under an honest and thorough sense of duty, and exhibited
in all their relations with the commander of the Shenandoah the fullest
determination to prevent, as far as in them lay, any infraction of neu-
trality.
Possibly their suspicions may have been removed too easily b3^ the
positive word of honor of the American commander and his officers,
but, as has been more than once observed, it has ever been a received
rule of official conduct to trust implicitly to the honor of an officer.
To hold, under such circumstances, that because the local police were
not as vigilant as they might have been, or because under cover of the
darkness men may have contrived to elude their vigilance, a nation is
to be held liable for damage done by a vessel to the extent of a claim of
many millions of dollars, would be, as it appears to me, to carry the
notion of " due diligence'' to an unheard-of and unwarranted length, and
would be calculated to deprive the decisions of the tribunal of respect
in the eyes of the world.
Questions have been raised as to the number of men thus added to the
crew of the Shenandoah, and as to the proportion which the number thus
added bore to the number of her crew on her arrival in the port. But to
this I attach no value. The second rule of the treaty prohibits any re-
cruitment of men. There can be no doubt that the number was sufficient
to constitute a recruitment. And though it may be true that, independ-
ently of the addition thus made, the number of the crew remaining after
the desertions at Melbourne would have been sufficient to enable the
vessel to carry on operations against ordinary merchant-vessels, and,
therefore, if the operations of this ship had been directed against the
same class of vessels as before, the augmentation of the crew would
have made no difference as to her capacity for mischief, yet I agree with
the counsel of the United States that it is unlikely that without such
augmentation she would have ventured into the dangerous polar seas
to' destroy the whaling- vessels. My opinion is based on the ground that
the authorities cannot justly be held responsible for what happened in
spite of their anxious desire and endeavor to insure the observance of
neutrality.
It only remains to be stated that on hearing that men had been em-
' British Appendix, vol. i, p. 553.
'Appendix to United States Counter Case, p. 1185. .
504 ARBITRATION AT GENEVA.
barked in the Shenaudoali prior to lier departure, the governor caused
inquiries to be made, and finding that a violation of neutrality bad taken
place, he announced his intention of refusing the hospitality of the port
to the captain or any other officers of the Shenandoah, should they again
visit the colony, lie, moreover, wrote to the governors of the other
Australian colonies, and to the commodore of the station, to warn them
of what had occurred. As the Shenandoah did not visit any other
British port until she arrived at Liverpool to be surrendered at the end
of the war, no opportunity occurred of taking proper notice of the con-
duct of her commander on this occasion.
Importance has been attached to the language of this letter of the
governor. It is in the following terms:
Government IIousk, MeWoume, February 27, l?^^
Sir : I consider it my duty to place your excellency in possession of the accompanying
correHimiidence and other documents connected >vitli tiieproceedin<;8of tbecouiraander
of the Confederate States vessel JShenandoah, while lyin^ in Hobsou's Bay, for the pur-
pose of having necessary rej>aii*s effected and taking in supplies, under permission
granted by me in accordance with the conditions prescribed by Her Majesty's procla-
mation and instnictions for the observance of neutrality.
2. I have also the honor to forward copies of letters from the chief commissioner of
police in Victoria, accompanied l)y reports and statements which leave do doubt that
the neutrality has been dagrantly violated by the commander of the Shenandoah^ who,
after having assured me of his intention to respect it, and pleaded the privilege of a
belligi'rent ship of war to prevent the execution of warrants under the toreigu-enlist-
ment act, nevertheless received on board his vessel, before he left the port on the Itth
instant, a considerable number of men destined to augment the ship*s company.
3. I have thought it right to communicate to your excellency this information, in the
event of Lieutenant Waddell or any of his ollicers hereafter claiming the privileged of
a belligerent in any port of the colony under your government.
1 have, Ac,
C. H. DARLING. ^
Our distinguished president dwelt, as one of the governing motives
of his decision against the British government as to this ship, on the
admission thus made by the governor, that the neutrality had been
flagrantly violated by the commander of the Shenandoah, as though this
were an admission made by the governor as against himself. The gov-
ernor is complaining that the neutrality of a JBritiah port has beea vio-
lated by a belligerent, in si)ite of the endeavors of the authorities to
maintain it, and of the pledge given by the belligerent to respect it.
To hold the governor responsible for what he thus complains of is to
reverse the nature of things and to make the party tcron^ed liable instead
of the icrong-doer. The violation of the neutrality of a British port by
the commander of tbe Sheimndoah could only affect British liability if
there had been negligence on the part of the British authorities, whereby
the violation of neutrality had been allowed to occur.
I cannot, therefore, concur in the decision of the majority of the tri-
bunal that the British government is responsible for anything that
happened with reference to the Shenandoah at Melbourne. Looking to
the regulations, and tbe distance of the vessel from her nearest port, 1
cannot agree with the president that too much coal was allowed. 1 can-
not agree that repairing or taking in coal at a particular port, on the
way to some ulterior operation, makes the ])ort a base of naval opera-
tions ; still less that the neutral can be affected thereby when he id
ignorant of the ulterior operation so contemplated. I cannot agree
that where the government of a colony is honestly desirous of doing its
duty and maintaining neutrality, the fact that men anxious to ship on
board a belligerent vessel elude the vigilance of the police in the night-
time is to make the parent state liable for all the damage such vess<d
' British Appendix, vol. i, p. 565.
OPINIONS OF SIR ALEXANDER COCKBURN. 505
may afterward do. And I protest, respectfully but emphatically,
against a decision based on grounds to my mind so wholly untenable.
The remainder of the history of the Shenandoah may be told in a few
words. On leaving Melbourne in February, 18G5, she pro- ^,vr i..H>in« m^i
ceeded to the arctic seas in quest of the whalers of the '''""''
United States ; and does not appear to have touched at any port, with
the exception of the island of Ascension, until she arrived and surren-
dered at Liverpool, on the 6th of Kovember, 18G5. Meanwhile, how-
ever, the great contest between Federals and confederates had been
finally decided. General Lee had been forced to evacuate the lines of
Potersburgh and liichmond, and had surrendered with the remnant of
his army. The president and vice-president of the confederacy had
been arrested and the principal European powers had withdrawn the
recognition of belligerent rights accorded in 1801. Under these cir-
cumstances, Mr. Mason, the confederate agent in England, applied to
Her Majesty's government, on the 20th of June, 1865, for permission to
send, through the British authorities, letters to the commander of the
Shenandoah directing him to desist from any further hostile proceed-
ings. This application was acceded to, and the letters of recall were
sent to Nagasaki, Shanghai, and the Sandwich Islands, and copies
were al^^o sent to the governors of the British colonial possessions and
to the officers commanding the British squadrons in the Pacific and
China seas, and on other foreign stations.^ In August, reports were
received by the British government from Washington, that the Shenan-
doah was continuing her depredations although her commander had
been informed of the termination of the war, and orders were in conse-
quence given to the various colonial authorities, and to the officers
commanding British squadrons, to detain the vessel whenever she
should come within their reach. The vessel herself was to be surren-
dered to the United States authorities, but the crew was to be allowed
to go free.* She aiTived at Liverpool on the 6th of November, 1865,
and was at once placed under detention by the authorities. A party of
men from ller Majesty's sliip Donegal was placed on board of her, and
a gun-boat lashed alongside to prevent her leaving the port. Her
commander addressed, the same day, a letter to the British govern-
ment surrendering the vessel. lie explained that the captures made bj'-
him after the close of the war had been made in ignorance of that fact,
and asserted that he had received the first intelligence of the extinction
of the government, under whose authority he was acting, on communi-
cating at sea with a British bark on the 2d of August, and that he
had then suspended all further warlike action.'
Acting ui)on the advice of the law-officers, the British government
decided upon setting free such of the crew of the Shenandoah as could
not be prosecuted under the foreign-enlistment act, and ui)on giving up
the vessel herself to the United States Government, who had claimed
her through tlieir minister in London. This was accordingly done. The
captain of Uer Majesty's ship Donegal, who had been placed in charge
of the Shenandoah, interrogated the crew, and having satisfied himself,
as he afterward reported, that none of them were British subjects, the
\?hole of them were set at liberty.* It is certain that, at the time, no
evidence to prove the British nationality of any of the crew was ofifered
to, or in the possession of, Her Majesty's government. About seven
^ British Appendix, vol. i, p. 654.
3 Ibid., p. 657 ; United States Documents, vol. vi, p. 701.
* British Appendix, vol. i, p. 667.
^ Ibid., pp. 682, 711.
506 ARBITRATION AT GENEVA.
weeks afterward, the depositioa of a man named Temple, who asserted
among other things that part of the crew were British subjects, was
communicated by Mr. Adams to the government, and investigations were
made with a view to instituting prosecutions. But Temple was found
to be himself unworthy of credit, and, no further evidence being forth-
coming, the matter was allowed to drop.* The Shenandoah was finally
delivered np to the American consul at Liverpool, and sailed for New
York in November, 1865.*
The act of the British government in thus giving orders for seizing
the Shenandoah has been referred to in the United States argument as
an instance of the Qxercise of the prerogative. And in a certain sense
it is true that it was so. But the case was altogether exceptional. It
was supposed that the Shenandoah being, owing to the extinction of the
confederate government, from whom her character as a ship of war had
been derived, without a commission, was continuing her hostile opera-
tions on the high seas. Such acts done in the absence of a commission
would have assumed the character of piracy, and the party committing
them have become a hostis communis^ who might be taken by any one
having the means of stopping such proceedings. Instructions might
therefore well be- given to any officers of Iler Majesty to seize the vessel
wheresoever found.
Cases of the Sumter ^ NuHhciUe, Chickamauga^ Tallahuftsee, and Retri
bution,
T,he five cases wo are now about to enter on belong to a class dif-
fering altogether from those which have hitherto occupied our attention.
We have here no question as to the fitting out or equipping on British
territory; none of those vessels having been fitted out or equipped,
for the purpose of war, in a British port. The complaint with respect
to them is that they were permitted unduly to enter and remain in
ports of Great Britain, and to procure coal, beyond what Her Majesty's
regulations of the 31st of January, 1862, prescribed ; or that they were
treated with a degree of indulgence refused to ships of the United States.
FIRST, AS TO THE SUMTER.
This vessel was a steamship ; she was purchased at the commence-
sumtrr «t uicnt of thc War, by the government of the Confederate
States, fitted out, and armed, and duly commissioned as a
ship of war. As such she left the Mississippi, on the 30th of June,
1861, under the command of an officer of the name of Semmes, holdinga
commission from the confederate government. She cruised for a period
of six months, and during that time made seventeen prizes. She coaled
once, and once only, at a British port, namely, at Trinidad, where she
arrived on the 30th of July. But prior to arriving at Trinidad, she had
put in and coaled at the Spanish port of Cienfuegos, and the Dutch i>ort
of St. Ann, Cura^oa. After her visit to Trinidad, she put in and coaled
at the Dutch x)ort of Paramaribo, and after that at Martinique. Be-
sides stopping at these ports, she put into Cadiz for repairs.
It was in respect of the Sumter, the first ship of war of the Confed-
erate States which appeared upon the ocean, that the United States
Government asserted the untenable position that, -while itself treating
those States as a belligerent power, and shrinking from treating con-
federate prisoners as rebels, or confederate ships, when taken, as pirates,
' British Appendix, vol. i, p. 720.
2 Ibid., pp. 683, 689.
Ttif
Trtiutiail.
OPINIONS OF SIR ALEXANDER COCKBIJRN. 507
they were entitled to call upon all other nations to treat these ships as
such, and to refuse the ordinary shelter accorded by the universal com-
ity of nations to vessels of war in neutral ports. Upon this assertion^
which was at once repudiated by every other country, I have already
taken the opportunity of making such remarks as occurred to me. I
refer to the subject in this place only for the purpose of pointing out
that, as regards the assistance afforded to the Sumter at Trinidad, the
complaint preferred by the United States Government was not in
respect of any excess in the accommodation afforded, but to the ves-
sel having been permitted to enter the port and receive any assist-
ance at all.
On the 7th of August, Mr. Francis Bernard, an American gentleman
residing at Trinidad — there being at the time no United States consul
at that place — wrote to inform Mr. Seward that, " on the 30th ultimo, a
steam sloop-of-war, (Semmes, commander,) carrying a secession flag,
five guns, some of a large caliber, and a crew of from 120 to 150 men,
sailed boUlly into our harbor, and reported herself to the authorities of
this island as being on a cruise. She was last from Puerto Cabello ; and
since she succeeded in getting out of the Mississippi Eiver she has al-
ready captured no less than eleven American vessels."
Having given the names of some of these, he adds : " The Sumter re-
mained here till the 5th instant, and was allowed to supply herself with
coals and other necessary outfits. The British flag was hoisted on the
government flag-staff for her arrival, and the officers of the British war-
vessel Cadmus appeared to be on amicable terms with those of the Sum-
ter. The merchant who supplied the Sumter with coals did it with the
consent and approval of our attorney-general."^
On the 30th September Mr. Adams, transmitting to Earl Kussell an
extract from Mr. Bernard's letter, writes as follows :
Legation of the United States,
Septeniber 30, 1861.
The iiiulerHifrned, envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary of the United
States, regrets to bo obliged to inforoi the Right Honorable Earl KusHell, Her Majesty's
principal secretary of stat« for foreign affairs, that he has been instrncted by th&
President of the United States to prefer a complaint against the authorities of the
island of Trinidad for a violation of Her Majesty's proclamation of neutrality, by
giving aid and encouragement to the insurgents of the United States. It appears, by
an extract from a letter received at the Department of State from a gentleman believed
to be worthy of credit, a resident of Trinidad, Mr. Francis Bernard, a copy of which
is submitted herewith, that a steam-vessel known as an armed insurgent i)rivateer,
called the Sumter, was received on the 30th of July last at that port, and was per-
mitted to remain for six days, during which time she was not only furnished with all
necessary supplies for the continuance of her cruise, under the sanction of the attor-
ney-general, but that Her Majesty's flag was actually hoisted ou the government flag-
staff in acknowledgment of her arrival.
The undersigned has been directed by his Government to bring this extraonlinary
proceeding to tlio attention of Lord Russell, and in case it shall not be satisfactorily
explained, to ask for the adoption of such measures aa shall insure, on the part of the
authorities of the island, the prevention of all occurrences of the kind during the
continuance of the difficulties in America.
The undersigned deems it proper to add, in explanation of the absence of any official
representation from Trinidad, to substantiate the present complaint, that there was
no consul of the United States there at the time of the arrival of the vessel. The
undersigned had the honor, a few days since, to apprise Lord Russell of the fact that
this denciency has been since supplied by preferring an application for Her Majesty's
exequatur for a new consul, who is already on his way to occupy his post.^
It will be observed that, in these cominanicatioDS, nothing is said as
to the quantity of coal ; all that Mr. Bernard reports is that the vessel
' British Appendix, vol. ii, p. 3.
' Ibid.
508 ARBITRATION AT GENEVA.
" was allowed to supply herself with coal and necessary outfit." In the
case of the United States this isconverted, without any reference to the
actual quantity, into "a/wW supply of coal.''*
In point of fact, the vessel took in eighty tons, which, as we shall see
presently, was not a third of what she could actually carry.
The facts which occurred on the arrival of the Sumter at Trinidad
were these:
The governor, evidently a little embarrassed at this, the first visit of
a confederate ship of war to the island, sent off a dispatch .to Captain
Hillyer, commaudiug Her Majesty's ship Cadmus, then supposed to
be at St. Vincent, requesting his presence. Before receiving the letter
Captain Hillyer, as appears from his report to Admiral Sir A. Milne of
the 6th August, being about to enter the harbor of Granada, was
informed by the harbor-master there that a large privateer, belonging
to the southern confederation, was at Trinidad, and that the governor
of the latter island had dispatched a letter to him at St. Vincent the
day before; whereupon he proceeded with his ship to Trinidad, arriving
there on the 4th.
ne reports farther as follows:
I fonud a heavy bark-ri*:(<jpd eteamcr, with South ftHleral tlag, with ten BtiU'sa&d
pendent, flying. An oliicer I'loin her boarded ns as soon as we anchored, with the
captain's respects. Soon after I sent the senior lientenant, Mr. Sittiuji^stone, with nij
compliments, requesting ho would be good enough to show his commissioa and papers,
which, after some hesitation, and not before Mr. iSittingtone produced his commissioQ.
he did.
From his report, it is a regular commission as commander to Captain Semmes, late
of the United States Navy, to the Sumter, as a man-of-war, signed by President Davis.
She mounts five guns between decks, viz, four heavy 32-pounders and one pivot 68-
pounder; but, having been a passenger-boat, her scantling is so light (not more than
5 or 6 inches) that I do not think she conld stand any firing, and the guus being only
from 4 to 5 feet from the water, would not be worked in bad weather.
She broke the blockade at New Orleans, and was nearly captured ; since then she
has been most successful, having eleven prizes; two she sank and the rest are at St.
Jago de Cuba, under the protection of the government, with the sanction of the gov-
vernors-in-chief, until they receive orders from Spain as to the matter.
She has been supplied with a new main-yard, eighty tons of coal, and provisions
from this place, the attorney-general having given the governor his opinion that it wa*
qnite legal to supply her.
I called on Captain Semmes next morniilg as he was getting his st-eam up, and he
gave me full assurance that he would in no way interfere with l^ritish or neatraJ
trade, but complained greatly of the southerners having; no port to send their prizes
to, and that he would be obliged to destroy all he took, in consequence of the strict
blockade on the southern ports and the stringent proclamations of aU the great powers.
He thinks himself safe at Cuba, as the government of Spain's proclamation is only
■against privateers and their prizes, and says nothing about men-of-war.
She sailed yesterday under steam, at 1 p. m., and from the signal station was reporteil
going to windward, and, from his questions, I should fancy ho is going to cruise fj^r
some of the California and China homeward-bound ships, and there is no doubt he will
do an enormous amount of damage before he is taken, for he seems a bold, determined
man, and well up to his work.'^
The governor, Mr. Keate, appears to have been much on his guard
against any compromise of the neutrality he had been enjoined by fler
Majesty's* government to observe. In his dispatch to the Duke of Kew-
castle, of the 7th of August, announcing the arrival of the Sumter, he
writes :
I have the honor to report that a steamer, purporting to be a man-of-war, and to be-
long to the so-called Confederate States of North America, put into the harbor of Port
of Spain on the 30th ultimo. The vessel is called the Sumter, and appears to be a con-
verted passenger-steamer. She now carries, as I am given to understand, five powerful
guns.
^ Case of the United States, p. 321.
« British Appendix, vol. ii, p. 4.
» OPINIONS OF SIR ALEXANDER COCKBURN, 509*
2. On the clay of her arrival, one of her officers (all of whom seem to have been in
the naval service of the United States) called upon me, sending in his card, with the
words written under his name, " Lieutenant, Confederate States Navy." Before receiv-
ing him, I directed my private secretary to inquire of him whether my doing so, after
reading these words, would be construed into any sort of reco^ition of him or his ship
in their assumed character. I did this in consequence of the injunction in your grace's
dispatch *^on no account to recognize" any ship *Mn any other capacity than that of
a United States vessel." Mr. Evans, for such was this officer's name, replied that he
was sent by his commanding officer. Captain Semmes, who was himself unwell, simply
to pay his respects, and that to prevent any such construction he would withdraw nis
card and only send in his uiime verbally. I then received him, and had some conversa-
tion with him, taking occasion to refer expressly to the neutral position occupied by
Groat Britain in regard to the two belligerent parties in North America.*
It seems pretty plain that the presence of tbe Sumter was by no means
agreeable, for Governor Keate adds :
The avowed and principal object, no doubt, with which the Sumter ran to this port
was to obtain coals and provisions. A great deal of trade goes on between Trinidad
and the northern ports of North America, and Captain SemmcB, I imagine, has not
failed to take this opportunity of obtaining information with regard to the vessels em-
ployed under the flag of the ITnited States in this traffic. Fears are entertained with
regard to one or two now expected. It is to be hoped that the presence of the Sumter
in these waters will soon be made generally known, and that, while the civil war con-
tinues, the lumber and provision trade, any interruption of which would cause serious
embarrassment to this community, will be carried on in British bottoms. I have com-
municated with Admiral Sir Alexander Milne, now, I believe, at Halifax, on the subject,
and since the arrival of the Sumter, Her Majesty's ship Cadmus has come into the har-
bor, and her commander, Captain Hillyer, has verified the character of the Sumter,.
and the commissions of her officers, and recognized her as a man-of-war. ^
It appears from tbese letters that the governor, beyond recognizing
tbe Sumter as a belligerent, as he was bound to do, acted with the ut-
most caution as to recognizing her nationality ; that the production of
Captain Semmes's commission was insisted on before any accommodation
was afforded ; that the supplies which the ship obtained, beyond provis-
ions, were confined to a new main-yard and 80 tons of coal ; that even this
was not conceded before the advice of the attorney-general of the colony
had been taken ; that the ship came into port on the 30th of July, and
left on the 5th of August ; a period of about six days.
We are now able to estimate the correctness of Mr. Bernard's opinion
as to the amicable terms on which the officers of the British war-vessel
were with those of the Sumter. Their intercourse appears to have been
purely of an official character.
It is important to observe that what thus took place at Trinidad occur-
red in August 1861, several months before the issuing of the regula-
tions restricting the stay of belligerent vessels and the supplies to be
obtained in British ports, and when the matter stood simply on the prin-
ciples of international law.
The Sumter, in her short career of six months, put in and obtained
snpplies of coal, as has been stated, at ports of four different nations,
Spain, Holland, the Brazils, and France.
It may be interesting to see how the governors of these ports under-
stood and acted upon the principles of neutrality which they were bound
to observe.
Before arriving at Trinidad the Sumter, as has been stated, put into
the port of Cienfuegos.
It appears from the remonstrance of the United States consul to the
raptain-general of the Havana that she arrived there on the 7th July
and took in coal; from the journal of Captain Semmes we learn that the
quantity was 100 tons.^
> British Adpendix, vol. ii, p. 1.
« Ibid.
' British Appendix, vol. Ti^pp. 101, 105 ; Semmes'a "Adyentnres Afloat/' p. 145.
510 ARBITRATION AT GENEVA.
It appears from a dispatch of Mr. Secretary Seward to the United
States miDiater at the Hague, of the 15th August, that the Sumter
arrived at St. Ann's, Cura§oa, on the 17th July, and that she there re-
ceived 120 tons of coal. It appears from Captain Sommes's journal and
from a letter of the United States minister at the Hague of October 8,
1861, that she remained there six or seven days.^
After her stay at Trinidad we next find her at the Dutch i>ort of
Paramaribo. She arrived, as appears from a letter of the United States
consul at that port to the United States minister at the Hague, on the
19th August, and left on the 31st, making a period of twelve days, hav-
ing been allowed to coal and relit.'^ The quantity of coal is stated, in a
letter of the 15th October, from the Netherlands minister for foreign
afl'airs to the United States minister, to have been, as he terms it, " the
very restricted quantity of 125 tons — at the most, sufficient for four days
progress.^
The vessel next arrived at the Brazilian port of Maranham. It ap-
pears from a letter from the United States consul at that port to Mr.
Seward, of the 15th September, 1861, that she arrived at Maranham on
the 6th and remained there nine days, and obtained 100 tons of coal^
having already 150 tons on board, " which," he adds, " would make an
ample supply for ten or fifteen days of constant running." Other sap-
plies she was allowed to procure ad libitum, and when she left her com-
mander stated that she had enough to last for three months.^
She appears to have arrived at Martinique on the 9th of November.
She remained there fourteen days. Permission was given by the gov-
ernment to take on board as much coal as her commander required.
He took sufficient to enable him to cross the Atlantic*
The ship arrived at Cadiz on the 4th January, 1862, as appears from a
dispatch of the United States minister to Mr. Seward of the 8th of that
month.^ As she needed repairs, her commander requested the use of
the government dock for that purpose. The request wiis grants,
though with the limitation to such repairs as were strictly necessary.
She remained at Cadiz thirteen days.'
It thus appears that in every instance on which the Sumter had occa-
sion to coal she was allowed to take in a considerably larger quantity
than she took at Trinidad, and that on every one of such visits, with
the exception of the one to Cienfuegos, she remained a greater number
of days than in the British ports.
On the receipt of Governor Keate's dispatch, this being the first time
such a thing as the arrival of a confederate ship of war at a British
port had occurred, the secretary of state for the colonies required the
opinion of the law-officers of the Crown '' as to the propriety of the course
pursued by the governor and the commander of Her Majesty's ship
Cadmus ;" and also " as to whether vessels of war or privateers belong-
ing either to the United States or to the so-styled Confederate States
can properly be required to leave British ports in the West Indies and
British North America, if the state of the weather i>ermitted their
doing so."
The law-officers, on the 16th September, a fortnight prior to the let-
ter of Mr. Adams to Lord liussell, reported as follows :
^ British Appendix, vol. vi, pp. 69, 81 ; SeiumeB's "Adventures Afloat," pp. 154-160.
^British Appendix, vol. yi, p. 81.
» Ibid., p. 84.
* Ibid., p. 2.
* British Case, p. 17.
^Bntish Appendix, vol. vi, p. 108.
•Ibid.,pp. 113,116.
OPINIONS OF SIR ALEXANDER COCKBURN. 511
We do not precisely understand what was the course pursued toward the Sumter
by the comnianderof Her Majesty's ship Cadmus; there is nothinc from this otiicer;
and Governor Keate's dispatch of August 7 only states that ** Captain Hillyer has
▼erified the character of the Sumter and the commissions of her othcers, and recog-
nized her as a man-of-war."
Governor Keate appears to have carefully avoided any such recognition whatever.
We know not upon w6at instructions either of these othcers may have acted ; but as
at present advised we see no reason to disapprove of the conduct of either. Tiie Sum-
ter certainly appears not to be a privateer, and is (we presume) a vessel of war com-
missioned by a de facto belligerent government.
Your lordship's second question must, in our opinion, be at present answered in the
negative.
Although it is competent by the law and usages of nations to Her Majesty, in com- '
mon with all neutrals, to place certain restrictions npou the access of the ships of war
or privateers of belligerent governments to British ports ; yet Her Majesty has not
(a« far as we are aware) done so during the present contest, excepting only in the case
of their being accompanied by prizes in the (printed) instructions of June 1, herewith ;
at the present time, therefore, expressio unius est exctuaio alteriua ; and Her Majesty's
government should determine upon and make public some other general instructions
on the point, if this should be considered expedient on grounds of imperial and inter-
national policy ; unless or until this be done the ships of war or privateers of either
party, unaccompanied by prizes, should not, in our opinion, be required to leave Brit-
ish ports by the local authorities.^
This opinion having^ been given by the law oflScers, Earl Bassell, on
receiving the letter of Mr. Adams of the 4th October, replied as follows :
Foreign Office, October 4, 1861.
The undersigned, Her Majesty's principal secretary of state for foreign affairs, has
liad the honor to receive a complaint from Mr. Adams, envoy extraordinary and min-
ister pleni])ot.entiary of the United States at this conrt, against the authorities of the
island of Trinidad for a violation of her Majesty's proclamation of neutrality, by giving
aid and encouragement to the insurgents of the United States.
It appears, from the accounts received at the colonial office and at the admiralty, that
a vessel bearing a secession flag entered the port of Trinidad on the 30th of July last.
Captain Hillyer, of Her Majesty's ship Cadmus, having sent a boat to ascertain her
nationality, the commanding officer showed a commission signed by Mr. Jefferson
I>avis, calling himself the President of the so-styled Confederate States.
The Snmter, which was the vessel in question, was allowed to stay six days at Trin-
idad, and to snpply herself with coals and provisions ; and the attorney-general of the
island perceived no illegality in these proceedings.
The law-officers of the Crown have reported that the conduct of the governor was
in conformity to Her Majesty's proclamation.
No mention is made by the governor of his hoisting the British flag on the goverif-
ment flag-staff; and, if he did so, it was probably in order to show the national char-
acter of the island, and not in acknowledgment of the arrivfilof the Sumter.
There does not appear, therefore, any reason to believe ^hat Her Majesty's proclama-
tion of neutrality has been violated by the governor of Trinidad, or by the command-
ing officer of Her Majesty's ship Cadmus.-
The Government of the United States instructed Mr. Adams to in-
form Her Majesty's government that " the President deeply regrets that
T ord Ilussell is unable to give to our complaint a satisfactory solution."^
^'The armament, the insurgent flag, and ths spurious commission," says
Mr. Seward, " told the governor, as they sufficiently prove to Her Maj-
esty's government, that the Sumter is and can be nothing but a pirati-
cal vessel." Consequently ber officers and crew ought not to be received
in foreign ports. At another time she was said to be a privateer, and
that Great Britain ought to adopt toward her, as such, the rule estab-
lished by some European governments of not allowing privateers to
stay in their ports longer than twenty-four hours at a time. Such was
the language of Mr. Seward to Lord Lyons, as appears from a dispatch
of the latter to Earl Eussell of November 4, 1861.* But the assumption
' British Appendix, vol. ii, p. 2.
« Ibid., p. 5.
3 United States Documents, vol. ii, p, 487.
* Ibid., p. 488.
512 ARBITKATION AT GENEVA.
that the Sumter was a privateer was a mistake. She was a commis-
sioned ship of war of the Confederate States.
l^ow, we have seen, when considering? how far, according to interna-
tional law, a neutral sovereign is bound to place any restraint on the
stay in his ports of belligerent vessels, or on the supplies they are al-
lowed to procure, that by that law no such obligation exists. Indeed
it is admitted in the case of the United States^ that there were "not
any precedents which settled absolutely the quantity of coal that might
be furnished to a belligerent man-of-war by a neutral," and I observe
that it is nowhere asserted b}" the United States that the law of nations
imposes any such restraint. There is, therefore, an end to the claim of
the United States in respect of this vessel having been permitted to
coal at Trinidad. For, 1 need hardly say that the Queen's regulations
of January, 18G2, caunot be applied ex post facto to create an obligation
which did not previously exist. It would indeed be strange if regula-
tions, more stringent than the rules of international law, framed by a
neutral sovereign for the very purpose of insuring the observance of
neutrality, can be made to create an antecedent liability which never
. would have existed without them. Even if the hospitality aflForded to
the Sumter at Trinidad should be deemed too great with reference to
the rules laid down in the regulations, the fact that it occurred some
months before those regulations were issued deprives it of all impor-
tance.
It is true that iu this case, as in others, the Government of the United
States insists that partiality, inconsistent with neutrality, was exhibited
toward confederate vessels by reason that these, as in the present in-
stance, were permitted to coal, while liberty to form a depot of coal at
Bermuda for the supply of their ships of war was denied to the United
States. No one can be misled b}*^ such a contention. I have already
pointed out that to allow one belligerent to have a supply always stored
up and ready, and to leave the other to take his chance of the public
m<arket, are things essentially different, and that, far from the refusal
of such an advantage to the United States being a violation of neutral-
ity, the concession of it would have been so in the opi>08ite direction.
JMoreover, such a contention involves a forgetfulness of one of the ele-
mentary principles of international law. A neutral is only justified iu
allowing to a belligerent vessel the use of his ports and access to his
shores to obtain the things which the belligerent may lawfully procure.
He has no right to allow the belligerent the use of his territory on shore
for belligerent purposes, which the permission to form a depot would
necessarily involve.
There is one other material fact connected with this vessel to which 1
desire to draw attention, the more particularly as it is stated in the
American Case^ that the "excessive supply of coal (80 tons) furnished
to the Sumter at Trinidiid enabled her to inflict the subsequent injories
on the commerce of the United States." The fact to which I refer is,
that while using the coals furnished at Trinidad^ the Sumter did not cap-
ture a single prise.
From the list of captures contained in the fourth volume of the Amer-
ican Documents, and from the two lists of claims successively put in by
the United States Government, it appears that this ship captured in
the whole eighteen vessels, of which, however, one was recaptured, and
seven were afterward released by the Sx^anish government. Those cap-
tured should be thus distributed :
1 Page 324.
OPINIOXS OF SIR ALEXANDER COCKBURN. 513
On her cruiso back from New Orleans to Cienfuegos the Sumter cap-
tured eight vessels ; on her cruise between Cienfaegos and Curacoa,
none; on her cruise between Curacoa and Trinidad, two; between Trin-
idad and Paramaribo and Maran nam, none; between Maranham and
Martinique, one ; between Martinique and Cadiz, five; between Cadiz
and Gibraltar, two. It thus appears that, of the eighteen vessels taken
by the Sumter, eight were taken before the vessel ever entered a neu-
tral port at all ; nine before she arrived at Trinidad ; that after leaving
Trinidad she made two cruises without taking a single vessel ; and that
it was not till she had obtained at Maranham the supply of 100 tons of
coal, in addition to the 150 she already had on boad, that she again be-
came successful in making a prize. Of the prizes for which Great Brit-
ain is now asked to make com()ensation, two were taken before the Sum-
ter arrived at Trinidad, and the rest at intervals of two, three, and four
months from the time she left a British port, and when she was cruising
by means of coal furnished from a French port. The tribunal is now in a
position fo judge how far the supply, said to have been "excessive,"
furnished at Trinidad, ''enabled this vessel to inflict the subsequent in-
juries sustained by the commerce of the United States."
It is impossible, with any regard to equity and justice, to hold Great
Britain liable for injuries inflicted by the Sumter on United States com-
merce at a time when this vessel was deriving no benefit from coal sup-
plied to her from a British port, but was availing herself of supplies ob-
tained from other countries.
The facts connected with the Sumter during her stay at Gibraltar
At fi.bn.iur. may be briefly stated.
She arrived at Gibraltar on the 18th January, 1862, in need of
some repair, and wholly out of coal. According to the United States
consul, she had but two days' supply in her bunkers. The merchants at
* Gibraltar, from what motive is immaterial, refused to supply her with
any. The pecuniary resources of her commander ran short. Many of
the crew having got on shore refused to return, and when force was at-
tempted to be used to compel them, the local police interfered and pro-
tected the men against violence. Another crew could not be got, and,
under these circumstances, the vessel was compelled to remain in the port.
Mr. Sprague, the United States consul, had. from the first protested
against her being allowed to enter or remain in the port, but received
the very proper answer that strict neutrality should be observed. On
the 21st of January he telegraphed Mr. Adams, "The Sumter is still
here, evidently awaiting funds. The British government observes strict
nentrality in conformity with the Queen's proclamation."^ On the 7th
of Pebruary Mr. Sprague informs Mr. Seward that " the Sumter still
remained in port, not having yet received a pound of coal."^
The helpless condition of the vessel further appears from /i letter from
Mr. Sprague to Mr. Adams of the 6th February :
Tho Sumter remains in port. She took in yesterday 3,000 gaUons of water, paid for
by a Mr. R. O. Joyce, of this city, who had previously provided her with an anchor and
chain. To-day her commander made a second attempt to obtain coal from the coal
niercbants in this market, and I am informed they have declined supplying him out of
deference to myself.
Since yesterday there are some ten or twelve seamen of the Sumter on shore, and
to-day they have nearly all refused to return to their ship. One of them, in a drunken
state, called upon me this day for protection. As the officers of the Sumter have at-
tempted to forcibly ship them off from the quay, X to-day called upon the governor of
this fortress to inform him of the circumstance ; that I was ready to take under my
charge any of these seamen who might wish to avail of my protection, and who would
1 United States Documents, vol. ii, p. 500.
2 Ibid., p. 501.
33b
514 ARBITRATION AT GENEVA.
Bwear allegiauce to the Government of the United States; and that I did not believe
that it would be in couformity with strict neutrality tu force these men on board of
the Sumter.
Since my interview with the governor I hear that orders have been given to the po-
lice anthorities not to permit these men to be forcibly taken on Ixiard of the Sniiiter by
her officers, and up this hour (7 p. m.) they remain on shore, mostly in a state of intox-
ication.
All these circumstances may probably retard the departure of the Snmt«r from thi.^
port; still I sincerely hope that a Federal cruiser may soon appear to do away with any
further trouble about this craft. I have every reason to believe that her boilern ar«
defective, and that she is very badly provided with powder aud other munitions of
war. *
On the lOtli of February Captain Semnies, having it seems in the
mean time procured funds, finding the market shut against him, ad-
dressed a pressing letter to Captain Warden, the officer of the dock-yard,
to be allowed to purchase coal from the government stores. He writes :
Confederate States Steamer Sumter,
Bagf of Gibraltar, February 10, 18^.
Sm : I have the honor to inform yon that I have made every effort to procare a sap-
ply of coal without success. The British and other merchants of Gibraltar, instij^ted.
I learn, by the United States consul, have entered into the unneutral combination of
declining to furnish the Sumter with coal on any terms. Under these circumstaDces I
trust that the government of Her Majesty will find no difficulty in supplying me.
By the recent letter of £arl Russell (January 31, 1861) it is not inconsistent with
neutrality for a bellfcerent to supply himself with coal in a British port. In other
words, the article has ueeu pronouuced, like provisions, unnozious; and this being the
case, it can make no difference whether it be supplied by the government or an indi-
vidual, (the government being re-imbursed the expense,) and this even though the
market was opeu to me ; much more, then, may the government supply me vnth an
innocent article, the market not being open to me. Suppose I had come into port des-
titute of provisions, and the same illegal combination had shut me out from the mar-
ket, would the British government permit uiy crew to starve? Or suppose I had be<>n
a sail-ship and had come in dismantled, and the dock-yard was the only place where I
could be refitted, would you have denied me a mast; and if you would not deny me a
mast, on what principle would you deny roe coal, both articles being declared by your
government to be innocent f The true criterion is not whether the governmont or aa
individual may supply the article, but whether the article itself is noxious or anuox-
ious. The government may not supply me with powder, why f Not because I may have
recourse to the market, but because the article is noxious. A case in point occurre«l
when I was in Cadiz recently. My ship was admitted into a government dock, and
there repaired, and why f First, because the repairs were innocent, and secondly be-
cause there were no private docks in Cadiz.
So here the article is innocent, and there is none in the market, (accessible to oie:)
why may not the government supply me f
In conclusion, I respectfully request that you will supply me with 150 tons of coal,
for which I will pay the cash, or, if 3'ou prefer it, I will deposit the money with au
agent, who can have no difficulty! I suppose, in purchasing the same amount of the ma-
terial from some one of the hulks and returning it to Her Majesty's dock-yard. ^
Here Tvas an occasion where an "babitually insincere neutrality"
might have found grounds for making an exception to rules however
Strict. The only answer, however, which Captain Bemmes receiveti wa^s
that "Captain Warden's instructions prohibit him from supplying the
foreign men-of-war of any nation with coal, either by purchase or other-
wise, from the government depot, so long as there is any in the markets -
On the 12th of February the United States war-ship the Tuscarora ar-
rived off Algeciras, and was soon followed by the Kearsarge, and lat^^r by
the Ino, and these vessels thenceforth lay in wait to intercept the Sumter
if she attempted to leave the bay. In the mean time her condition re-
mained as helpless as before. On the 18th Mr. Sprague writes to Mr.
Adams: "The Sumter still remains in port. The coal companies in
' United States Documents, vol. ii, p. 501.
2 British Appendix, vol. ii, p. 1«.
nbid., p.lb.
OPIXIPXS OF SIR ALEXANDER COCKBURN. 515
this market still persist in refusing to sell her coal, notwithstanding that
$12 per ton is offered for it, which is 50 per cent, over the market price." ^
Whether b}^ reason of not being able to procure coal, or from fear of
being captured by thje United States ships which were waiting to inter-
cept, her, or both, the Sujnter remained at Gibraltar till December,
when it was proposed to seil her. Having heard of the intended sale,
the United States minister at Madrid desired Mr. Sprague to protest
against it.
Captain Pickering, the commander of the Kearsarge, though consider-
ing the vessel " as of little value,'' yet thinking that she was offered for sale
probably only in order to establish a precedent, and because, in his
opinion, ^' the sale of the so-called confederate war-vessels in British
ports was an act as unfriendly and hostile to the United States Govern-
ment as the purchase of war- vessels in their ports by the same party,"
advised a similar course.^
Mr. Adams took a wiser and more liberal view. On the 24th of De-
cember he writes thus to Mr. Seward :
I have the honor to transniit copies of a series of commnnications received from Mr.
H. J. Spragae, the consul at Gibraltar, respecting the movements made at that port to
sell the steamer Sumter. As he desired my advice, I gave it to him in the letter, a copy
of which goes with the papers. The question of the right to sell the property of a
belligerent to a neutral in a neutral port is not without its difficulties, and I find the
authorities differ materially about it. My own leaning is rather to a liberal construc-
tion, especially as in this case it relieves us from' a burdensome process of vigilance.
Besides which, I find that the Government bought a war-vessel of the Greeks while
engaged, in Iti^, in their war with the Tnrks.^
The protest of Mr. Sprague was founded on two grounds : First, that
the Sumter was a United States vessel which had beeu made prize by
the confederates ; secondl3% that the sale was made in order to avoid
capture by the ve^els of the United States Xavy.* The local govern-
ment refused to interfere to prevent the sale, but gave official publicity
to the protest of the American consul.^ The sale took place, and the
vessel wa« sold for $19,500.^ The purchaser was a Mr. Klingender, said
to have been connected with the house of Fraser, Trenholm & Co. of
Liverpaol. It is probable that the purchase was in reality made on be-
half of the latter. It was no doubt believed at the time that the sale
was fictitious, and that the vessel was intended still to remain the prop-
erty pf the confederates, and to be employed in her former service,
(whence the objection to the sale,) more especially when the vessel, tak-
ing advantage of a very high wind, slipped away at night and escaped
the vigilance of the hostile cruisers, who had instructions from Mr.
Adams to seize her, notwithstanding the sale, if she quitted the port
and was caught on the bigh seas. Had the sale been to an unobjec-
tionable purchaser, Mr. Adams was prepared to acquiesce in it. On the
17th of December, three days before the sale, he writes to Mr. Sprague :
You will, first of all, confine yourself to the simple duty of watching all the pro-
ceedings. In case of au}*^ attempt at a merely fraudulent transfer for the sake of es-
caping harmless from our cruisers and resuming her former career, you will call their
attention to the fact, deny the validity of any such proceeding, and invoke their in-
terference. Should it appear to you, on the other hand, that the purchasing parties
are foreiguers acting iu good faith for the conversion of the vessel to some legitimate
and peaceful trade, I see no better way of getting rid of a burdeuHome labor of vigi-
lance upon a property of little value than to acquiesce in it. On the other hand,
1 United States Documents, vol. ii, p. 505.
^ Ibid., pp. 508, 510.
3 Ibid., vol. ii, p. 507.
* British Appendix, vol. ii, p. 45.
* Ibid., p. 44.
*' United States Documents, vol. ii, p. 515.
516 AKBITKATIOX AT GENEVA.
should you have reasou to suspect a spurious transaction for the sole purpose of extri
eating the vessel from its present position in order to replace it in a more effective at-
titude of hostility to the United Stales, you will do well to remonstrate with the local
authorities, and to send a copy of your remonstrance, together with the evidence on
which you rest it, to this legation.^
The vessel arrived at Liverpool on the 13tli of February, 1863. There
she underwent repairs; all fittings for warlike purposes were removed
and she was reduced to the condition of*a freight-carryinp^ merchant-
vessel.'-^ But Mr. Dudley maintained to the last the belief that she was
again intended to be employed on her former service. The consequence
was, that vigorous remonstrances were addressed by Mr. Adams to Her
Majesty's government for having permitted the sale of the vessel, on
the double ground that the transfer was fictitious, and that the sale of a
belligerent ship in a neutral port, effected to avoid capture, is, by the
law of nations, unlawful.'^
Three complaints are put forward with reference to the foregoing:
facts: (1.) That the vessel ought to have been compelled to leave the
port in conformity with the regulations of January, 1802, as soon as those
regulations came into operation, namely, on the 17th of February. (2.)
That the authorities ought not to have permitted the sale to take place^
more especially as it was fictitious. (3.) That when, after the sale, the
vessel entered the port of Liverpool she ought to have been treated as a
confederate ship of war, and as such compelled to leave the port under
the regulations of January, 1862.*
•The first of these he<ids of complaint is brought forward for the first
time in the case of the United States. It never occurred to the zAal either
of Mr. Sprague or Mr. Adams to insist on the Sumter being driven oat
of the harbor into the very jaws of her enemies. It is now insisted on as
a flagrant violation of neutrality.
As regards this head of complaint it is plain thai the only way iu
which the United States could be prejudiced by the Sumter remaining
in the i)ort is that, if compelled to leave, she would inevitably have been
captured by the Federal ships which were waiting to seize her. But
for this, the longer she remained idle at Gibraltar, Incapacitated by
want of coal and want of funds, the better ; while there, she could do no
damage to the commerce of the United States. From the hour she en
tered the harbor of Gibraltar all complaint of prizes taken or destroyed
necessarily ceases. All that the United States could have gained by
tlie Sumter being forced to leave Gibraltar, and being taken by their
war-vessels, would have been the few thousand pounds which this old
steamer would have sold for ; to which, however, should perhaps l>e
added, that the employment of ships to watch her would have ceased to
be necessary.
But was the government under any obligation to compel the ship to
leave on the expiration of thfe twenty-four hours! The answer is that
the regulations of January 31, 1862, did not apply to, but on the con-
trary excluded, the Sumter, which entered the harbor on the 18th of
January, 1862, the regulations applying in terms only to such vessels
as should enter ports of Her Majesty, " after the time when the order
should be first notified and put in force,'' in the particular place ; which,
in this instance, was not till the 1st of February. Even had this been
etherwise it would have been impossible with any pretense of justice to
*»PPb% ^^ post facto^ to a vessel which had entered the port, when no
I United States Documents, vol. ii, p. 514.
^ Britisb Appendix, vol. ii, p. 64.
' British Appendix, vol. ii, p. 58.
* Case of the United States, p. %{5.
OPINJONS OF SIR ALEXANDER COCKHURN. 517
8iicb regulations existed, a rule which must inevitably have had the
ett'ect of delivering her into the hands of her enemies.
Again, even if the third article of the regulations had been a[)i>licable
to the Sumter, the fact that the necessary effect of forcing her to leave
the harbor would have been to give her up to hostile vesseis, waiting
just outside to seize her, would have afforded, I think, a sufficient ground
for suspending the regulation, and extending the time beyond the
twenty-four hours, under the discretionary power which admits of such
extension in cases of necessity. No governor, as it seems to me, is
bound to force a vessel to quit a port in which she is in safety, when
the necessary effect of doing so must be to throw her into the hands of
a more powerful enemy who is W4iting for her outside. It is admitted
that by the law of nations a vessel taking refuge, when pursued by au
enemy, in a neutral port, cannot be pursued. She is protected by reason
of the inviolabilit.v of the neutral territory and its waters, and by the
right of asylum which the neutral concedes to her.
But of what avail would this be, if the neutral were bound, at the
expiration of twenty-four hours, to say, " You must quit my port. I am
aware that your enemy is waiting outside to seize you, but your time is
up and you must go. If, indeed, your enemy were inside the port, I
could give you twenty -four hours start of him, which would probably
enable you to escape ; but he is just outside the port instead of within
it, and I must therefore leave you to your fate." I cannot think that
any governor would be bound to drive a vessel out of a port where she
is iu safety, when the necessary consequence must be her capture or
destruction, any more than he would be bound to do so if the conse-
quence would be her exposure to a hurricane. The regulation never
was intended to apply to such a case.
Furthermore, I cannot help thinking that giving au equitable con-
struction to the third article of the Queen's regulations, the inability to
procure a supply of coal, also brought the vessel within the exceptions
contained in it, although coals are not specifically mentioned.
The Sumter, indeed, had her sails and could have put to sea; but it
is obvious that a steamer without coal, in the face of powerful steam-
ships, would have but a poor chance. Thus crippled, her power of
navigation on the ocean or of escape from enemies being seriously im-
paired, she would be the crippled duck in the comparison of M. Drouyn
de Lhuys. Supposing a sailing-vessel dismasted, in a port at which no
mast suitable to her size could be iirocured, the local authority would
certai'jly not be bound to compel her to leave ; the case would be within
the exception ; but what masts and sails are to the sailing-vessel, coal,
in addition to her machinery, is to the steamer.
If, as I have shown, the Queen's regulations did not apply to the
Sumter, a fortiori in the exercise of his discretion the governor ought
not to have compelled her to leave under the circumstances stated.
In answer to the remonstrances of Mr. Adams as to the sale of the vessel
having been allowed to take i)lace. Her Majesty's government, under
the advice of its law-officers, took this position. The sale of a bel-
ligerent ship in a neutral port to avoid capture has in it nothing un-
lawful. It may possibly be invalid against the other belligerent, into
whose hands, but for such sale, the vessel would have fallen ; but it is,
good against the rest of the w^orld. The vessel may be subject t<» rap-
ture, when again at sea, by a ship of the belligerent, and the new owner
mast abide by the decision of a prize court of the belligerent as lo the
validity of his purchase; he cannot claim protection from his own gov-
ernment i^i respect of the seizure. But the government of the neutral
518 ARIUTKATION AT GENEVA.
port cannot interfere to prevent the sale, nor can it prevent the pur-
chaser from dealing with the vessel as he pleases. It is under no obli-
gation to do so; and, what is still more to the pnrpose, it has no power
to do so.
It was, therefore, impossible that the British authorities could, con-
sistently with the law, interfere with the sale or movements of this
vessel.
They had no power to try the question whether the sale was i^eal or
fictitious ; even if the transfer had been plainly fictitious, they bad no
power to prevent the vessel leaving the port as freely* as she had
entered it.
This position appears to me impregnable. I will only add that I do
not find anywhere pointed out by what power, whether derived from
statute or common law, the British authorities could have seized or
interfered with this vessel after her sale.
Even if the British government could be held to have incurred any
liability in respect of the Sumter having been sufifered to leave Gib-
raltar, as she never again ^ appeared on the seas as a vessel of war, or
did injury to an American ship, no claim to damages can arise in re-
spect of her being permitted to leave, beyond, possibly, the inconsider-
able sum which may have been her value.
The position at first taken by M. Staempfli that, by analogy to the
case of a military force taking refuge in a neutral country, in which
case an established rule of international law requires that such force
should submit to being disarmed and disbanded, a ship of war taking
refuge in a neutral port must in like manner be disarmed and dismantled
is, as I have shown elsewhere, wholly untenable, the distinction between
military and naval forces in this respect being universiilly admitted. I
am glad to find the honorable gentleman no longer insists on it.
After the arrival of the ship at Liverpool, Mr. Adams addressing Earl
Kussell insisted on her being still considered as a confed-
Ai Lixer,K.,.L Qj^r^^Q vcsscl of War, aud therefore within the Queen's regu-
lations relating to the stay of ships of war in British jiorts.*
Earl liussell gave the proper answer :
I liavo the honor to inform you that Her Majesty^H govern^nent have had nnder their
couBideration, iu communication with the proper law-advisers of the CrowD, your letter
of the 18th ultimo, stating that yon had received information of the arrival of the
steamer Sumter at Liverpool, aud calling; my attention to the bearing on this caae of
Her Majesty's proclamation, limiting the stay within British ports of vessels of war
belonging to either of the belligerent parties.
I have now to inform yon that Her Majesty's government, in the present state of
their information on the subject, are unable to assume, as you appear to c^o, that the
ship lately called the Sumter has not been legally and bona fide sold to a British owner
for commercial and peaceful purposes; and unless it were established that the sale wa«
merely Petitions, Her Majesty's proclamation, to which you refer, cannot be deemed
applicable to that vessel in the port of Liverpool. -
To this might have been added that she was no longer a vessel of
war.
Even if this, view were erroneous, the Sumter, never having done fur-
ther mischief to United States vessels, no claim to damages can possibly
arise in respect of her having been allowed to remain at Liverpool.
This being so, it may be scarcely worth .while to say more about her.
•But as this pitiful claim is made the occasion of studied insult to Great
Britain, on the score of her "habitually insincere neutrality," it is right
to observe that as soon as this vessel was known to be at Liverpool, she
' British Appendix, vol. ii, p. 56.
'Ibid., pp. ri7, 5H.
OPINIONS OF SIR ALEXANDER COCKBURN. 519
became the object of watchful attention on the part of Her Majesty's
government.
On the 4th of April Earl Kassell writes to Mr. Adams as follows:
My attention having been drawn to a paragraph which appeared in the Daily News
of the 17th nltimOf in which, nnder the heading of ** Confederate AVar-Vesaels," is in-
cluded the Sumter, now called the Gibraltar, as having been thoroughly repaired at
Birkenhea<l, and being ready for sea, I deemed it advisable at once to request the
proper anthorities to cause particular attention to be paid to this vessel.
I have now the honor to acquaint you that it appears from a report which has been
received from the collector of customs at Liverpool, and which has been commnni-
cated to me by the lords commissioners of Her Majesty's treasury, that, since the ar-
rival of the Sumter at Liverpool on the 13th of February last, she has been carefully
watched by the custom-house officers, and that, although the vessel has received some
repairs, nothing has taken place regarding her of a suKpicious character.
The Sumter appears to be laid up in Ihe upper part of the great float, at Birken-
head, and there seems to be no sign of her being at present intended for sea.
I have the honor to add that the authorities at Liverpool are instructed to continue
to observe this vessel, and to report without delay any circumstances of an unusual
character which may happen to take place with A)gard to her.^
To which Mr. Adams replies :
I have had the honor to receive your note of the 4th instant, in reference to a' para-
graph which appeared in the Daily News of the 17th ultimo, respecting the immediate
preparation of the Sumter for departure from the port of Liverpool. I must confess
that the information received by me from Liverpool, from wholly independent sources,
had led me to believe the newspaper statement t-o be true. It is, however, with very great
satisfaction I receive the contradiction of it from your lordship, as well as the assur-
ance that the movements of that vessel are under the observation of Her Majesty's
government. I am the more led to indulge this that the notice appears to have been
spontaneously furnished to me with a degree of courtesy which I should be wanting
iu my duty if I were to fail properly to appreciate.-
A month or six weeks later, all her war fittings were removed; and
the vessel, having been adapted for running cargo, it was proposed to
load some heavy ordnance on bonrdof her, the intention being no doubt '
to run the blockade and convey the guns, which appear to have been
intended for purposes of fortification, to one ofthe southern ports. The
authorities immediately interfered, nor would they allow the ship to sail
with the guns till thoroughly satisfied that they were incapable of being
used on board, and were to be carried only as cargo.
On the 1st of July, Mr. Dudley, for once giving credit to the authori-
ties for a desire to do their duty, writes:
The steamer Sumter is still in port. She has taken on the two large guns referred
to in previous dispatches. The collector refuses to clear the vessel until they are re-
moved and threatens to seize her if she sails without her clearance. Either the gov- •
ernment or owners will have to give way. This looks as if the authorities were iu
earnest ; at least, so far as tliis vessel is concerned.^ »
On further inquiry all doubt as to the guns being cargo was removed,
and the vessel was allowed to clear with them on board.
The confident expectations at first entertained by Mr. Dudley of her
being destined for further use as a vessel of war proved unfounded.
She assumed the humbler character of a. blockade-runner, and is sup-
posed to have been lost in attempting to get into Charleston.
It is impossible to say that any responsibility attaches to Gi'eat
Britain in respect of this vessel.
THE NASHVILLE.
The facts relating to the Nashville are very similar to the earlier part
of the history of the Sumter. TbeNwhTine.
At Bermuda.
* British Appendix, vol. ii, p. 59.
2 Ibid., p. 61.
^United States Documents, vol. iv, p. 203.
^ Page 328.
520 ARBITRATION AT GENEVA.
She is stated, in the case of the United States, to have been
a large paddle-wheel steamer, formerly engaged on the New York
and Charleston line; to have been lightened to diminish herdrauj^ht;
to have been armed with two guns, and to have been commanded by an
officer who had been in the Navy of the United States. She ran out
from Charleston on the night of the 26th of October, 1861, and arrived
at the port of St. George, Bermuda, on the 30th. She was then short
of coal, having, no doubt, taken only a sufficient supply to bring her to
Bermuda, the object being to lighten her draught as much as possible^
in order to facilitate her getting over the bar at Charleston. In a dis-
I>atch to the Duke of Newcastle, of the 2d of November, Governor Ord
writes :
I have the honor to acquaint yoar excellency that these islands were visited, on the
30th ultimo, hy the Confederate States paddle-wheel steamer Nashville, commanded
hy Lientenant Peagrara, and having on board Lieutenant-Colonel Peyton, of the Con-
federate States army, said to be a minister from those States to the court of Spain,
with numerous other officers and pefsoiis apparently connected with the ship. The
vessel anchored off the dock-yard ; and Lieuteuat Peagram and Colonel Pey t-on at ouce
called upon Captain Hut ton, K. N., the superintendent, and requested, him to supply
their vessel with 600 tous of coal, it being their wish to proceed to sea as early a»
possible.
^This request Captain Hutton declared himself unable to comply with,
and the governor, on being applied to, having repeated the refusal,
Lieutenant Peagram supplied himself from private sources.
The governor further states :
The object of the Nashville's visit has not been distinctly stated; but there can be
no doubt that she is bound to Eugland, and that she has ou board persons who will
endeavor to excite an interest iu the favor of the Confederate States at some of the
European courts, and probably to obtain supplies of material and stores for the sup-
port of their cause.
It had been reported that the Nashville left Charleston on the 12th nltinio, with ex-
Senators Slidell and Mason, as representatives from the Confederate States to the gov-
ernments of P'rance and England ; that she had $2,000,000 on board for the purchase of
material, and was intended to coal at Bermuda. This report no doubt led to the call-
ing in here, on the 20th ultimo, of the United States steam-vessel Connecticut, which
left here immediately after, and proceeded apparently to cruise south.
It appears from the report of the Nashville officers that these ex-Senators really did
break the blockade about the time named, but in a smaller ve^^el, and that tlier
reached Havana on their way to England. The Uuite<l States steam-vessels lieing
thus put upou a wrong scent, the Nashville ran the blockade the night of the 2<)tb,
probably with the remainder of the Confederate States representatives and the specie,
and got to Bermuda in safety; from which she has every chance of reaching England
unmolested by the United States vessels of war.
I trust my proceedings ou this occasion will meet your Grace's approval.^
• It is stated in the case of the United States^ that " the Nashville
took on board at Bermuda, bj' the permission of the governor, 600
tons of coal, and that this act was approved by Her Majesty's principal
secretary of state for the colonies. This approval seems to have been
elicited by the complaints which had been made to the governor by the
consul of the United 8tates at that port. It may also be that Her
Majesty's government preferred to have the question settled, before it
could be made the subject of diplomatic representation on the part of
the United States."
This statement requires correction. In the first place, no permissiou
was given by the governor. At that time none was required. No rej?
Illations having then been issued as to the stay of vessels in British
ports, or the supply of coal to be allowed to them, it was free to a ves-
sel of war to purchase as much coal as she required.
In the second place the quantity was, in fact, not 600 tons, but, as
appears from a dispatch from Governor Lefroy to the Earl of lumber
ley, either 442^ or 472 J tons, according as the report of an officer of the
' Uritish Appendix, vol. ii, p. ^7.
OPINIONS OF SIR. ALEXANDER COCKBIJRN. 521
port, who took down the amoaiit, or the memory of the party who sup-
plied the coal, may happen to be correct.^
This fact appearing in the evidence furnished by Her Majesty's Gov-
ernment, it is now said by the United States Government to "matter
little which is the true account ;''"'^ yet we have seen 150 tons treated as a
considerable amount; and while on this subject I cannot help. observ-
ing that although it is true that Governor Ord, in writing to the Duke
of Newcastle, says, with reference to the amount of coal taken by the
Nashville, he " has been informed they have taken in about 600 tons,''
the United States consul, Mr. Wells, who no doubt kept a sharp eye on
what was doing, and was more likely to be well informed about it,
states, in a letter to Mr. Seward of the 8th of November, " the Nash-
ville took in about 500 tons of coal.'-^ Why should the larger figure at
once be assumed to be the right one, without any reference to the state-
ment of Mr. Wells !
When it is stated that the approval of the colonial secretary of what
has been done " seems to have been elicited by tlie complaints which
had been made to the governor by the United States consul," I am struck
by the faet that there is a total absence of all such complaint. Beyond
an application made by the consul to the governor, on hearing of the
ship's arrival, soliciting that an order may be given that no supplies
shall be granted to the vessel, no remonstrance or complaint of any kind
is made by Mr. Wells.*
When it is insinuated that " Her. Majesty's government preferred to
have the matter settled before it could be made the subject of diplo-
matic correspondence," two things should be added: the first, that the
supplies furnished to the Nashville at Bermuda never did become the
subject of diplomatic correspondence, no complaint having ever been
addressed to Iler Majesty's government, either as to the fact of coal
having been supplied to the Nashville, or as to the quantity furnished to
her. The subject is brought forward as a matter of complaint, for the
first time, in the proceedings before this tribunal. Further, it should be
stated that the approval of the secretary of state was elicited by the re-
quest of Governor Ord himself, who asked to be informed if he had acted
rightly in allowing the vessel to coal. It is distressing to have so fre-
quently to advert to inaccuracies of this kind.
The approval of the secretary of sta'te for the colonies was in these
words:
The conrHe pursued by you in tbe present instance was in strict accordance with the
principles which you wiU find laid down in my circular dispatch.
I have further to state that both }ou and Captain Hut ton showed a very proper dis-
cretion iu declining to furnish supplies to a war- vessel of one of the belligerent parties
from public stores belonging to the British government.
Her Majesty's government entirely approve of the whole of your proceedings on this
occasion.^
The secretary' of state, by the same mail which carried out the approval
of the secretary of state as to what had been done, sent a circular to
the governors of Her Majesty's colonies, containing instructions for their
future guidance iu such cases:
Having ha<l occasion to consult the law-oflicers of the Crown on the subject of remon-
Htrances addressed to the governors of some of the colonies by consuls of the United
States iu regard to certain particulars in the treatment of vessels bearing the Hag of
' British Appendix, vol. v., p. 13.
-Argument of the United States, p. 301.
* United States Documents, vol. vi, p. 2(>7.
* British Appendix, vol ii, p. ^H.
* Ibid., p. t9.
522 ARBITKATIOX AT GENEVA.
the States which have Hecedod from the Union, I think it right to commnnicate to you,
for your information and i^iiidauce, the principles which ought to be observed in cases
of the kind which raised the present question.
Yon will understand, therefore, that no foreign consnl haa any power or jurisdiction
to Boi^e any vessel (nnder whatever flag) within British territorial waters, and that the
British authorities pn|rht not to take any steps adverse to merchant- vessels of the Con-
federate States, or to interfere with their free resort to British ports.
With respect to snpplies, even of articles clearly "contraband of war," (snch as
arms or ammunition,) to the vessels of either party, the colonial authorities are not at
liberty to interfere, unless anything shonld be done in violation of the foreign-enlistment
act, 59 Geo. Ill, cap. 69, which prohibits the equipping, furnishing, fitting-out, and
arming of ships or vessels of foreign belligerent powers, and also the supply of guns or
equipments for war, so as to increase the yrarlike force of vessels of war, but which
does not render illegal the mere supply of arms or ammunition, dc-c, to private ships
or vessels.
If it should be necessary for the colonial anthorities to act in any such case, it should
only be done when the law is regularly put in force, and under the advice of the law-
oflicers of the Crown. •
With respect to the supplying in British jurisdiction of articles anapitia if«iw, (snch,
for instance, as coal,) there is no ground for any interference whatever on the part of
the colonial authorities.'
It is plain from these instructions that Her Maj'esty's government,
acting under the advice of the council of the Crown, took the same view
of the law applicable to such a case that all writers on international law
had taken, namely, that in the absence of regulations made by the neu-
tral state, a belligerent vessel in a neutral port enjoys perfect liberty to
obtain, from private sources, whatever supplies she may require.
Nor, even if the governor had had any discretion in the matter, could
it be said that he had exercised such discretion unwisely. The Xasliville
did not appear to be going on a mission of war at all. She was imi>er-
fectly armed with only two rifled 6-pounder guns. She was convejing
to Europe agents authorized to communicate with European govern-
ments on behalf of the Confederate States. The quantity of coal al-
lowed her was no more than was sufficient for the purpose of such a
voyage, and there was then no rule limiting the supply to the quantity
to take her to her nearest port. As a ship of war she was at liberty
to buy what she wanted.
I am therefore quite at a loss to see how the supply of coal at Ber-
muda can be made a ground for asking damages at the hands of this
tribunal. The argument that what was done, at a time when there was
unrestricted freoilom in respect of such transactions, is to be tried by
the test of stringent regulations, afterward made for the purpose of
placing restraints on that freedom, is obviously unsound. When it is
said that there was a violation of neutrality in allowing a confederate
vessel to take as much coal as she wanted, while the United States were
not permitted to establish a depot of coal for the supply of their ves-
sels, the argument which confounds the obvious distinction between a
public national store and the resources of private dealers, if indeed
worthy of attention, has already been disposed of.
The Nashville arrived at Soiitiiampton on the 2lst November, 1861.
On her way she seized and set fire to a United States mer-
chant-vessel, making her crew prisoners of war. On this
ground, as well as her being a vessel of the insurgent government, Mr.
Adams objected to her being received into a British port.
It was ascertained that the Nashville was duly commissioned as a ship
of war of the Confederate States, and was under the command of a
duly commissioned officer.
The law-officers, on being consulted by the government, gave an
» Hritish Appendix, vol. ii, p. 88.
OPINIONS OF 8IK ALEXANDER COCKIUJRN. 523
opinion in strict conformity to est^iblisbcd principles of international
• law :
The Nashville appears to be a confederate veBsel of war ; her commander aucl officers
have commissionfi in the confederate navy ; some of them have written orders from
the navy department, Richmond, to report to Lieutenant Pegram " for duty" on board
the NashviUe^ and her crew have signed articles to ship in the ^'confederate navy."
}{er having captured and burnt a United States merchant-vessel on the bigh seas
cannot) under these, circumstances, be considered (to adopt Mr. Adams's words) as
*' voluntarily undertaken by individuals not vested with powers generally acknowl-
edged to be necessary to justify aggressive warfare;" nor does it at all approximate
within the definition of piracy; nor is it an nnauthorize<l act of violence; and if (as
Mr. Adams suggests) Her Majesty's government is called on in this case *' either to
recognize a belligerent, or to denounce a wrong-doer," Her Majesty's government must,
upon the facts and documents now appearing, adopt the former course.
Witb reference to the allegation, that some of her officers are to be put in command
of vessels now fitting out in British ports for hostile purposes against the United States,
we can only say that if reasonable evidence can be poured that such vessels are be-
ing so fitted out, in contravention of the foreign-enlistment act, all parties concerned
therein should be legally proceeded -against, with the view to their being personally
pnnished, and to the forfeiture of the vessels.
We may add (generally) that it will be competent to Her Majesty, as a neutral
power, either to designate the particular ports to whieh alone the national ships of the
belligerents are permitted to resort; to limit the time for which, or to define the cir-
cumstances under which, they may so resort thereto, or to make and publish such gen-
eral regulations with reference thereto as she may think proper; but subject to such
limitations, 'Her Majesty caunot interfere with the national ships of one party resort-
ing to her ports in respect of hostile acts done on the bigh seas to the ships of the op-
posite party.^-
Sir Hu^h Cairns and Dr. Deane. being consulted by the United
States consul as to the possibility of recovering chronometers seized as
prizes on the taking of the Harvey liirch, advised :
It appears from the affidavit of Captain Nelson that the Harvey Birch was taken
possession of and burnt on the high seas, ontside the limit of British waters, and that
the armed ship Nashville carried the flag of the Confederate States.
From the statement in the newspaper above referred to, the commander of thf Nash-
ville seems to have held a commission under the Confederate States and in the navy
of those States.
The British government has considered the Federal and Confederate States entitled
to be treated as belligerents, each possessed of the rights of war, one of which rights
is the capture and destruction of vessels belonging to the enemy by the commissioned
vessels of the belligerepts.
If, therefore, the Nasliville was a commissioned vessel belonging to the Confederate
States, we are of opinion that Captain Nelson has no legal rights in this country
against the Nashville or her commander."
There is nothing in what tvas done in relation to the Nashville after
her arrival at Southampton which could give occasion for any complaint.
As soon as it was found that she was about to undergo repairs at that
port, instructions were given by the government to exercise the utmost
vigilapce to see that nothing was added to her equipment or her power
as a vessel of war.^ Mr. Adams, naturally anxious to prevent any
attempt of this nature, found, on applying to Earl liussell, that he had
been anticipated by the spontaneous action of the government.* Noth-
ing was done to the Nashville beyond necessary repairs, and she event-
ually left England on the 3d of February, 1862, tlie same in point of
equipment and strength as she had been on leaving Charleston.
On the 15th of December the United States steamer Tuscarora arrived
also at Southampton, and having taken in 150 tons of coal proceeded
to keep watch on the Nashville, evidently, as the sequel showed, for the
^ British A)»pendix, vol. ii, p. 9P.
* United States Documents, vo\ ii, p. 560.
•^British Appendix, vol.ii, p. 91.
^ ibid., p. 10:^.
524 ARBITRATION AT GENEVA.
purpose of seizing her on her departure from British waters. From a
telegram of Cai)tain Patey, senior officer of Her Majesty's ships at'
Southampton, to the admiralty, it appears that on the night of the 9th
of January "the dock-master reported having discovert in the dock
two ^officers and three men from Tuscarora, who stated they were on
shore under orders watching Nashville, and to signal should she get
under weigh. Dock-master removed them from the dock." *
Earl Eussell, having become acquainted with this state of things,
wrote on the 10th to Mr. Adams :
I have just been informed that armed men were found last nip^ht watching the Xa.s1i-
ville in Southampton doekH, and that they were diBcovered by Mr. Hoge, the dock su-
perintendent, close at the Nashville's bows.
I think it necessary to state to you that, except in case of stress of weather forciajj
them to land, Her Majesty's government cannot permit armed men in the service of a
foreign government to land npcfti British ground.
I tlierefore request that you will inform the captain of the Federal steamer in South-
ampton waters that he must refrain from acts of this kind, which may lead to a col-
lision between his men and the British authorities.
I have also to inform you that no act of hostility can be permitted between the Fed-
eral steamer and it« enemy within British waters, and that orders to that effect will
be issued to the board of admiralty.
In the case of the Nashville leaving British waters, the Federal steamer of war will
not be permitted to start from British waters in pursuit of her till after the expiratiou
of twenty-four hours,
The same rule will be applied to the vessels of the so-called Confederate States.-
On the 10th Captain Wilcox, of Her Majesty's ship Dauntless, writes
to Captain Craven, the commander of the Tuscarora, as follows :
Having observed preparations for departure in the United States steamer Tascarora,
under your command, and also in the Oonfederate States steamer, Nashville, I beg t'O
acquaint you that I have received instructions to prevent any hostility taking place in
British waters; and I beg to bring to your notice the usual law of nations which re-
<|uire8 that twenty-four hours should elapse before the departure of one belligereut
ship in pursuit of tlie other.
Kelyhig upon your good judgment in this matter, and the friendly- feeling existing \*e-
tweeu the' two governments, I have, &c.-'
Captain Craven answered, giving, it will be observed, no pledge :
I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your communication this evening.
I am not aware that I have given cause for your assuming that I meditate an act of
hostility in the waters of Great Britain.
Claiming the right of free access to, and egress from, the waters of a nation believed
to be in amity with the United States, and sincerely desirous of avoiding all semblance
of offense, 1 am. &C.*
It was not without some diflSculty that Captain Patey obtained there-
quired pledge. On the iioth of January he reports to the admiralty :
The Nashville's necessary defects have been made good, and she has beeu coaled :
and, judging from the frequent movements of the Tuscarora up and down the Sootb-
ampton Water, including one trip through the Needles and round the Isle of ♦Wight,
that the ship is in all respects ready for sea, I am induced to bring this matter nnder
the notice of their lordships, because it appears to me, from the course pursued, au<l
avowedly so made known to me by the captain of the Tuscarora, in a conversation which
I have had with that officer, he will do his utmost to render the rule of twenty -four
hours which the Nashville may be inclined to take advantage of null and void, by roo-
stantly keeping up his steam, and having slips on his cable, so that the moment 'Nash-
ville moves Tuscarora will precede her, and at once claim priority of sailing, retamiD<;
in this port again within the lapse of twenty-four hours ; it hence follows that the
Nashville is closely blockaded in a neutral port, and this is, no doubt, the special ob-
ject of the Tu8carora*8 visit to Southampton.
I would also beg to point out to their lordships the i>ossibility of the Tn8C4irora and
Nashville coming into collision in a narrow channel, and at night, and the probability
of Tuscarora, supposing that the other ship had j^urposely run into her, opeuin*:
^British Appendix, vol. ii, p. 107.
' Ibid., p. 108.
=» Ibid., p. 109.
Ubid., p. 110.
OPINIONS OF SI1{ ALEXANDER COCKBUKX. 525
fire on her, and hence bringing on a grave difficulty in the matter. Under all the cir-
cnnistanccs of this peculiar case, I think it my duty to make this communication to
their lordships, that they may take such steps as may by them be deemed necessary,
respectfully submitting that the commanders of the Tuscarora and Nashville, respect-
ively, should be called upon to give me a written notice of the date and hour they iu-
tpud to proceed to sea, and that, having received such notice from either one, the other
Hhonld be immediately notitied of the fact, and that he would not be allowed to follow
until twenty-four hours had elapsed.^
The following summary of facts, forwarded by the admiralty to the
foreign office on the 31st, is printed in the British Appendix :
Xovember 21, 1H61. — Nashville arrived at Southampton, and taken into dock for calk-
ing and other repaira.
December 15. — Tuscarora arrived, and anchored off entrance to river Itclien.
December %\. — Capt^iiu I*atey reported no repairs had been made in the Nashville,
bevoud what were absolutely necessary, and that she had not been in any way etiuipped
mure completely as a man of war.
January 10, 1862. — Captain Patey reported that dock-master at Southampton had on
previous night found two officers (one with side-arms) aiid three men, belonging to Tus-
carora, under Graving Dock fence on pier between docks. They stated that they were
stationed tliere by their captain's orders to watch Nashville, and to make a signal to
their own ship should Nashville attempt to get under way. Dock-master removed
these persoDS.
January 10. — Captain Patey also reported that Tuscarora had received one hundred
and fifty tons of coal, and had kept lier steam up since her arrival, with a spring on
her cable, apparently ready for sea.
January it. — Captain Wilcox, of Her Majesty's ship Dauntless, stationed in South-
ampton Water, informed captains of Tuscarora and Nashville that he had observed pre-
jiarations for their departure, and had instructions to prevent any hostilities in British
waters, and brought to their notice that the law of nations requires that twenty-four
hours should elapse before the departure of one belligerent ship from a neutral port in
pursuit of another. Captain Patey, as senior officer at Southampton, also informed
captains of Tuscarora aud Nashville that he had received orders to detain one vessel
until the other had twenty-four hours' start. Captains of two vessels answered, they
would conform to law ; and Captain Craven (of Tuscarora) claimed right of free access
to and egress from '^ waters of a nation believed to be in amity with the United States,"
trusting that strict impartiality would be observed between the two vessels. In reply,
Cuptain Patey referred to fact of Captain Craven having sent officers and men into
docks to watch Nashville, and also pointed out that a boat, apparently armed, from
tho Tuscarora had been observed pulling in and out of the docks without landing
during the night. Captain Craven gave assurance that this would not be repeated.
January 13. — Tuscarora left anchorage at 4 a. m., and proceeded to anchor one mile
w(>st of CaLshot Light-ship. Returned at 4 p. m. to former anchorage at entrance of
Itrlicn Rivor.
January U^. — Tuscarora at 2 p. m. weighed, and passed Calshot.
January l(i. — At 2 p. m. returned to original anchorage.
January 20. — At S p. m. proceeded down Southampton Water and anchored outsidt^
( alshot Castle.
January 22. — At 10 a. m. returned to anchorage at mouth of Itchen River.
January 25. — Captain Patey reported Nashville coaled and necessary repairs com-
pleted, and TuscaroVa ready for sea; also, that, in conversation with him, Captain
Craven, of Tuscarora, had avowed that he would do his utmost to render rule as to
twenty-four hours' start null, and void, by constantly keeping up steam, and having
Hlips on her cable, so that' the moment Nashville might move Tuscarora would precede
her, and claim priority of sailing, returning again within twenty-four hours, and so
actually blockading Nashville in a neutral port.
January 26. — Under instructions. Captain Patey obtained written promises from cap-
tains of Tuscarora and Nashville not to leave their then positions without giving
twenty-four honrs' notice.
January 27. — In order to prevent any hostile proceedings between the two vessels in
British waters, a messenger was dispatched in the morning to Southampton with in-
structions to Captain Patey to require Nashville to depart by 12 o'clock at uoon on
Tuesday, the 28th January, and Tuscarora on following day at same hour ; but at 1 p.
m., and before receiving these last-inentioned instructions, Captain^ Patey telegraphed
that captain of Tuscarora had notified him that that ship would put to sea on the fol-
lowing day, namely, on 28th January, at 11 a. m. To this telegram an answer was at
once sent that Tnscarora was accordingly to be allowed to proceed first ; and, under
the circumstances, Captain Patey did not think it necessary to acquaint the captain of
British Appendix, vol. ii, p. 114.
526 ARBITRATION AT GENEVA.
Tusoarora of the orders he (Captain Patey ) received subsequently, (on the afternoon of
the 27th;) requiring the ship to quit Southampton.
January 28. — Captain of Tuscan>ra reported by letter to Captain Patey
solahampulll'"* '* ^^'^*' ^® should defer departure, in consequence of inclemency of weather,
until 29th, or first fine day. Captain Patey, in answer, told Captain
Craven that he sa>v nothing in the state of the weather to prevent Tnscarora proceed-
ing, and requested she would lose no time in doing so, observing that, having receiveil
from Captain Craven a written notiHcation of his intention to proceed on the 27th, at
11 a. m., he (Captain Patey) had not deemed it necessary to convey to Captain Craven
the instructions he had received for Tuscarora to leave Southampton at noon on the
2dth.
January 28. — Captain Patey directed by telegraph not to take any steps, at present,
to compel Tuscarora's departnre.
January 29. — At 8.10 a. m., Tuscarora proceeded down Sontharopton Water.
January 30. — Captain Patey, by telegraph, reports Tuscarora, at 2 p. m., remains in
Yarmouth Roads, and he asks for instructions as'to Nashville's departnre. Infomted,
in repl^', that the time of Nashville's departure will date from bonr Tuscarora shall
really go to sea, in accordance with notice.
Admiralty, January 30, 1662.^
This summary was forwarded by Earl Eussell to Mr. Adams, with
this observation :
I think yon will see from this summary that Her Ma^jesty's government have reason
to complain of the conduct of the commander of the Tuacarora, as an attempt to carry
on hostilities in the waters of a neutral.
I have the honor also to inclose a copy of the London Gazette,^ containing the rales
which I mentioned to you in a previous letter.
On the 1st of February, the Tuscarora, having left Lymington, to
which place she had previously shifted her berth, six miles to the west
of the Needles, is seen steaming to the westward. The Nashville is
accordingly informed that she can leave on the ensuing day. The next
day the Tuscarora is at Portland. On the 3d, she is at her former sta-
tion in Gowes Boads. The Nashville having in the mean time giveu
notice to leave on the 3d, notice was given to the captain' of the Tusca-
rora not to leave for twenty-four hours. But so suspicious did the move-
ments o^ this vessel appear to the commanders of Her Majesty's ships,
that it was thought necessary for a ship of war to accompany the Nash-
ville past the Tuscarora, and for a watch to be kept on the latter by tbe
Dauntless.
It thus appears that the captain of the Tuscarora systematically en-
deavored to elude the twenty-four hours' rule by keeping up his steam
and having slips on his cable, and by making a series of false starts.
Indeed, he preceded the Nashville only to return at the moment of the
latter's departure, and he was therefore not permitted to leave for
another space of twenty-four hours. Nevertheless this*oflBcer, who had
himself been treated with scrupulous impartiality and attention, bnl
had given to Her Majesty's government just caase of complaint, having
been baffled in his endeavors to elude the necessary regulations of neu-
trality, did not leave Southampton without complaining that "a just
and rigid impartiality did not appear to have been extended to him,"^
in connection with " the escape of the pirate Nashville." It is true
that Mr. Adams admits, in a dispatch of the 7th of February, 1862.
that "he (Captain Craven of the Tuscarora) will doubtless lay the
blame on the action of the people and government of this country'; my
own opinion is, that if he had been a little more cool and quiet, hoVould
have fared better."*
* Hritish Appendix, vol. ii, pp. 120, 121.
sibid., p. 121.
3 Ibid., p. 125.
< Executive Documents, 1861-'62, No. 104, p. 38.
OPINIONS OF SIR ALEXANDER COCKBURN. 527
These proceedings of the coinniander of the Tuscarora have been re-
ferred to by M. Calvo in his recent work as a clear violation of neu-
trality.
The Nashville, on leaving Southampton, recrossed the Atlantic and
arrived at Bermuda on the 20th of February, 1862.^ The reg-
ulations issued by the British government on the 31st of Jan- *'"'"
uary previous, limiting the stay of the armed vessels of the belligerents
and the supplies to be obtained by them in Britisli ports, did not arrive
in that colony until nearly a fortnight later, and were unknown to the
governor at the time of the Nashville's visit.' There was np ground
therefore for placing any restriction on the coaling of the Nashville,
and she is stated by the United States consul to have taken in 150 tons.**^
She left the following day, and apparently went straight to Charleston.
Measures were taken by the governor to insure the observance of neu-
trality during her visit, and as at the time of her departure several
merchant-vessels were in sight, some of which might have been United
States ships, the admiral in command desired the commander of Her
Majesty's ship Spiteful to proceed to sea and watch that the Nashville
did not interfere with any vessels of whatever nationality until beyond
the limit of British territorial jurisdiction.^
Here J;he career of the Nashville, as a vessel of war, seems to have
closed, and on her return to Charleston she was converted into a mer-
chant-vessel under the name of the Thomas L. Wragg.'
It is idle to say that any responsibility can attach to Her Majesty's
government in respect of this vessel.
THE CHICKAMAUGA.
The claim put forward in respect of this vessel is founded on a single
act of coaling at Bermuda. I must express my suprise that
the time of this tribunal should have been occupied with a "»* *'*'"^'""*'*«"'
claim so groundless and frivolous as this.
This vessel was originally called the Edith. She was a double-screw
steamer, and was employed iii running the blockade. She was pur-
chased by the confederate government, and being found to be fast, was
converted into a vessel of war, and named the Chickamauga.
The case of the United States "invites the attention of the tribunal
of arbitration " to the facile manner in which this and other vessels were
pertnitted to adapt themselves to circumstances.*' Why our attention
should be thus invited I am at a loss to imagine. Is it meant to be sug-
gested that Great Britain could, or ought to have, prevented vessels,
originally built as trading-vessels, from being converted into ships «of
war, or should have refused to recognize them as ships of war, when so
converted and commissioned, because their original destination had been
of an humbler character If Either supposition is obviously absurd.
Having run out from Wilmington on the night of the 28th of October,
1864, and succeeded in evading the blockading ships, she destroyed
several trading- vessels belonging to the United States. On the 7th of
November she put into Bermuda.' Her commander. Lieutenant Wilk-
inson, applied to the lieutenant-governor for leave to coal and repair
— ^^^^^ ■ —
^ British Appendix, vol. ii, p. 17d.
' British CouDter Case, p. 108.
' UniUid States Documents, vol. vi, p. 213.
* British Appeuclix, vol. ii, p. 178 ; vol. v, p. 2.
^ Uuiteil Suites Documeuts, vol. vi, p. 73.
'i Page 414.
^ British Appendix, vol. ii, p. 135.
528 ARBITRATION AT GENEVA.
his machinery. The lieutenant-governor thereupon requested the admi-
ral commanding on the station to cause a survey to be made to ascertain
the repairs required by the vessel, and the time necessary for their com-
pletion, as well as the quantity of coal now iu her, and the additional
quantity^ if any, that would be required to enable her to proceed to the
nearest confederate port.^ The officer appointed by Captain Glasse re-
ported that certain repairs (specified in detail) were necessary to render
the vessel fit for sea, and that these repairs would occupy from four to
five days ; that thej^ were informed that she had about 75 tons of coal on
board, while her daily consumption was 25 tons ; they therefore con-
sidered that 25 tons more would be sufficient to enable her to reach the
nearest confederate port.* Orders were issued by the lieutenant-gov-
ernor in conformity with this report.
Permission was given to Lieutenant Wilkinson to remain five days
from the 9th of November for the completion of the necessary repairs,
and to take twenty-five tons of coal. But the permission to take in the
25 tons of coal was coupled with the condition that " a revenue officer
should be allowed to go on board and see the coal shipped,'' and the
chief officer of the customs was directed to " take measures for ascer-
taining that the vessel received no more than the quantity prescribed.'^'
Lieutenant Wilkinson, while making <' no objection to the terms on
which the coal was to be permitted to come on board,'' " with respect to
the quantity, begs to inform his excellency that, in his opinion, there
will not be a sufficiency to take the Chickamauga to the nearest confed-
erate port." " I trust, therefore," he says, " that on further consider-
ation, an additional day's supply (or say 25 tons) will be allowed." But
he is told in answer that the quantity had been fixed in conformity with
Admiral Glasse's report, and that if he was dissatisfied any further
communication must be addressed to the admiral.* There the matter
ended.
Upon these facts it might have been thought difficult to found any
possible complaint. But it is alleged that having obtained
< h..a.n»u«». permission to stay five days, she actually staid seven ; that
the permission was given to take the 25 tons of coal when she already
had 100 tons in her bunkers ; and that having had permission to take
25 tons, she in fact took 82.''
The only authority for this statement is the diary of a midshipman
who was serving on board the ship. The diary is not unamusing, and
it is not without its value. It proves conclusively that any claim in
respect of this vessel is wholly out of the question. The part which
relates to Bermuda is in these terms :
November 7, 1864. — At 7.25 took Bertniida pilot.- At 8 a. m. let go tlie port anchor,
with 25 fathoms chain in Five Fathom Hole, oil'St. George. I went in ashore in charge
of captain's boat. Captain went to Hamilton to see the governor to get permission to
bring the ship in.
November 8, 1864. — Ship still anchored in the same place. We will go in this evening.
They have decided to let us come in for five days. Hove up anchor at 4 p. m. and came
into St. George, and let go anchor at abont 4.30.
November 9. — Ship in the stream. Receiving fresh water and proyisions. Ship
is swarming with bumboat women, washerwomen, &.c. Met Midshipman Warren.
Confederate States navy, who is waiting for the Florida. Went out into the country
and staid all night with him.
November 10. — Ship still in stream. At 4 p. m. the bark Pleiades hauled alongside io
give ns coal. Coaling ship all night. Got in abont 72 tons.
1 British Appendix, voLJi, p. 135.
2 Ibid., p. 136.
» Ibid., p. 137.
< Ibid., pp. 137, 138.
" Case of the United States, r* 415.
OPINIONS OF SIR ALEXANDER COCKBrRN. 529
Xovtmher 11. — Stopped coaliu^; at 4 a. ni. »
Xorember 15. — Returned on board at 2.30 p. m. Got under way and stood out of the
harbor. Pilot left, us at 3 p. ni.
Soveinber 19 to December 20. — Readied Wilmington at about 11 a. ni. Found the Tal-
lahassee safe in port. She had destroyed six vessels, one of which was a brig that we
chased the second day out. » * * Until about the middle of December, nothing
occurred. The oflScers were granted leave. The Tallahassee was put out of commis-
sion about th» 15th of December, and loaded with cotton. The command was given
to Captain Wilkinson, Captain Ward taking the Chickamauga. I exp*^cted to go out in
tke Chameleon, as she is now called, but I slipped up on m^' expectations.'
We thus find that leave having been given on the 0th of November
to stay till the 15th, the vessel left on the 15th, the day on which the
permission expired ; and we further see that by another unlucky inaccu-
racy, the 72 tons in the midshipman's diary are magnified into 82 in the
case of the United States.
From the following affidavit of William Gilbert Outerbridge, the
revenue-officer who superintended the lading of the coal^ it would
appear that the writer of the diary must have been in error as to the
quantity shipped.
The affidavit is as follows :
I, William Gilbert Outerbridge, of Hamilton Parish, Bermuda, make oath and say :
I was employed tvs a revenue-officer at St. George's in 1864. 1 was ordered to see
that the confederate cruiser Chickamauga did not receive any more*thau twenty-five
tons of coal. I saw her receive twenty-five tons of coal, in the sti'eam, and left hev
lu'tween 3 and 4 in the morning, or, perhaps, between 4 and 5; I cannot be positive to
tlie honr, nor am I sure whether tbe date \\i\s the 10th November; 1 have a note-book
of lri(>5, but have not been able to find the one I kept iu 1&'64. I swear that she did
not receive more than twenty-live tons in the niglit in which I was on board her.
.Slie was coaled from a bark alongside, but 1 cannot recollect if she was called the
Pleiades. I made a report to Mr. Edwin Jones, but kept no copy of it. The bark
was stiU alongside when they ceased coaling, and I lefc the Chickamauga, and I am
positive that sue wa^ not alongside at daylight in the morning.
I went on board about b p. m. the previous evening, and did not leave my post all
the time she was coaling. I took an exact account of all t>he coal put on board, and
swear that she did not get seventy-two tons while I was on board. I do not believe-
she got that quantity at all.
WM. GILBERT OUTERBRIDGE.*
It is, however, possible that the opportunity may have been abused
and the vigilance of the officers eluded. It appears from the affidavit
of another revenue-officer that there were at that time frequently as
many as fifty vessels in the harbor of Saint George's. Mr. Brown, a
merchant of the i>ort, says:
I, John Tory Bourne, of the to.wn of Saint George, in the islands of Bermuda,
merchant, make oath and say that I well remember the arrival of the Confederate
States cruiser, the Chickamauga, in the port of Saint George, in the said islands, in
November, 1864, and that she obtained permission from the colonial authorities to take
on board twenty-five tons of coal, and no more. I cannot positively state that she
received on board no greater quantity, but I know that the officers and others con-
nected with the ship expressed great dissatisfaction at the restrictions placed on her
and the veiiy small quantity of coal allowe<l. The port of Saint George was so crow^ded
with shipping at that time that it would have been easy for the Chickamauga to evade
such restrictions, and no vigilance or activity on the part of the colonial government
c<juld, in my judgment and opinion, have prevented such eviisious if the officers of the
vessel chose to practice them.
Sworn at the town of Hamilton, in the islands of Bermuda, this 15th day of Febru-
ary, A. D. 1872. JXO. T. BOURNE. »
Assuming, however, that the commander of the Chickamauga, for-
getful of what a due sense of honorable conduct should have dictated,
* United States Documents, vol. vi, p. 726.
2 British Appendix, vol. vi, p. 139.
» Ibid.
34 b
530 ARBITRATION AT GENEVA.
did get any coal iu excess of tlie prescribed quantity, it would be most
unjust to impute this to the default of the Bermuda authorities.'
But in the result the whole question becomes immaterial. We see
from Mr. Carey's diary, that the Chickamauga arrived at Wilminert^D,
where this young officer unfortunately "slipped up on his expectations''
on the 19th of November, without having fallen in with, taken, or de-
stroyed a single United States vessel. The coaling at Bermuda there-
fore did not lead to any injury to the United States, and cannot in any
point of view found a claim for damages.
CASE OF THE TALLAHASSEE.
This vessel, said to have been also known as the Olustee, was bnilt
and originally employed as a blockade-runner under the
name of the Atlanta. In the corresimndeiice of the United
States consulates during the first six months of the year 1864 she is
several times spoken of as a blockade-runner of superior power of
speed.^ No reference whatever is made to her having been built for, or
being adapted to, the purpose of war.
In the August of that year, some guns were put on board of her at
Wilmington, with a crew of one hundred and twenty men, and having
contrived to escape from the blockading vessels, she commenced her
work of devastation, and destroyed several vessels.^ Having done so,
she arrived at Halifax on the 18th of August. What occurred there
will be best told in the narrative of her commander, John Taylor
Wood :
My reception by tbe admiral was very cold and uncivil ; that of the governor less s^.
I stated I was in want of coal, and that a^i soon as I could till up I would go to sea—
that it would take from two to tLrcie days. No objection was made at the time. If
there had been, I was prepared t© demand forty-ei^jht hours for repairs. The governor
asked me to call next day and let him know how I was progressing and when I would
leave. I did so, and then vrns told that he was surprised that I 'was still in port ; that
we must leave at once; that we could leave the harbor with only 100 tons of coal on
board. I protested against this as being utterly InsuDicieut. He replied that the ad-
miral had reported that quantity sufficient (aud, in such matters, he must be governed
by his statement) to run the ship to Wilmington. The admiral had obtained this iu-
formation by sending on board three of his ollicers ostensibly to look at our machinery
and the twin screw, a new system, but really to ascertain the quantity of coal on boarC,
that burned daily ^ tf c. * * * I am under many obligations to onr agent, Mr. Weir,
for transacting our business, and through his management about 120 tons of coal were
put aboard instead of half tliat quantity. ♦ • • Hiul I procured the coal needed, I
intended to have struck the coast at the Capes of the Delaware, and followed it down
to Cape Fear, but I had only coal enough to reach Wilmington on the night of the
2oth.3 .
It is admitted, in the case of the United States, that, in res|>ect of
what took place on this occasion, the United States hfive no cause of
complaint. Indeed, it is said :
Had the British authorities at Nassau, Bermuda, Barbadoes, Cape Town, Melbonrne,
and other colonial ports, pursued the same course that the lieutenant-governor at Hali-
fax ditl. under the wise advice of the admiral, the grievances of the United State*
would nave been much less, and this case would have been shorter by many pa^
The first time that the rule of January 31, 1862, as to the supply ©f coal, was fairlr
carried out, the opcratious of the insurgent cruiser, to which it was applied, were ar-
rested on the spot, and the vessel was obliged to run for a home port.*
The Tallahassee remained at Wilmington some months, aud she was
then sold by the confederate government and purchased by a private
^ United States Documents, vol. vi, pp. 727, 728.
2 United States Documents, vol. vi, p. 729; British Appendix, vol. v, p. 143.
^United States Documents, vol. vi, p. 729.
^ Page 411.
OPINIONS OF SIR ALEXANDER COCKBURN. 531
merchant, and became, and afterward remained, a merchant-vessel.
In that character, and under the name of the Chameleon, sl¥3 visited
Bermuda in January, 1865, with a cargo of cotton and tobacco. The
vessel being identified as the former Tallahassee, inquiries were set on
foot by the authorities, when it was fully shown by Mr. Wilkinson, the
consignee of the cargo, that she had passed into private hands, and
had been duly registered as private property.*
Upon what possible grounds, then, can we be asked to award dam-
ages in respect of this vessel f Simply because, as it is said, ''the Tal-
lahassee was a British steamer fitted out from London to play the part
of a privateer out ot Wilmington."^ But upon what authority is this
statement made i Simply on that of a passage to that effect in a
letter of Mr. Adams to Earl Russell, written much later, namely, in
March, 18G5, in which, complaining of the system of blockade-running
carried on by British ships, he thus speaks of the former Tallahassee:
The Chameleon, not inaptly named, but before known as the Tallahassee, and still
earlier as a British steamer fitted ont from London to play the part of a privateer out
of Wilmington, was lyiu^ at that very time in Nassau, relieved, indeed, of her guns,
but still retaining all the attributes of her hostile occupation.^
Every one knows that Mr. Adams would not say anything that he did
not fully believe to be true; but he must forgive me for saying that in
this instance he must have been mistaken, possibly confounding the
vessel in question with some other. In the earlier correspondence of
the United States consulate respecting this vessel there is not, as I have
already mentioned, any reference whatever to it as having been intended
lor a privateer. She was, in fact, sold after a three weeks' cruise, be-
cause, as the consignee of her cargo at Bermuda tells us. she had been
''found ill-adapted to the purposes of war."* Besides, had she been
built as a privateer, it is very unlikely that she would afterward have
been bought by a merchant as a carrying vessel. Every one acquainted
with these things knows that a vessel intended for war purposes differs
essentially, in i>oint of construction, from one intended for trade.
When a government is unable to build or to procure ships properly
constructed for war, it may be driven to the expedient of converting
merchant-vessels into vessels of war ; but a merchant does not buy ships
of war to turn them to a purpose for which their construction makes
them wholly unfit.
But what if this vessel had been originally built as a privateer! Is
it meant to be asserted that this alone, without any suggestion, much
less proof, of default on the part of the British government, is enough
to fix the latter with liability for the acts of such a vessel I
But it would be a waste of time to pursue this further. Here, again,
I must say I think this claim ought never to have been submitted to us.
CASE OF THE RETRIBUTION.
This vessel was a small steamer built in the State of l^ew York, and
originally employed as a tug-steamer on Lake Erie. Just before The Beihbuiion.
the attack on Fort Sumter she was chartered by the Gov-
ernment of the United States and sent to the southern coast.
Having been compelled by stress of weather to enter Cape Fear Eiver,
she was there seized by the confederates. Her machinery was removed,
* British Appendix, vol. v, p. 150.
3 Case of the United States, p. 412.
3 United States Docoincnts, vol. i, p. 709.
* British Appendix, vol. i, p. 151.
532 ARBITRATION AT GENEVA.
\
and she was converted into a sailing schooner and armed 5 she then
started on a cruise under the name of the Eetribution.^
On the 28th of January, 18G3, she captured near San Domingo the
United States merchant-vessel Hanover, laden with a cargo of provis-
ions. The master and crew of the vessel were put into the boat, in
which they rowed to San Domingo, and the chief officer of the Retribu-
tion, a man nauied Vernon Locke, or Parker, (for he was at different
times known under both these names,) took possession of the Hanover
with a prize crew.'^ .
The llanover arrived on the 5th of February at Long Cay, a small
islaud of the Bahamas, about two hundred and forty miles from the seat
of government, in company with a wrecking-schooner named the
Brothers, and owned by Messrs. Farrington, merchants, of that island.
Here Vernon Locke represented himself to be the master of the Hano-
ver, and stated that he was bound from Boston to a port of Cuba, where
he was to have sold his cargo, and to run the blockade with a cargo of
salt. On the plea that his vessel had run ashore on a neighboring
island, and was in a leaky condition, he obtained the permission of the
customs collector at Long Cay to transfer part of the cargo to the
Brothers, and to Jand the rest, and eventually to sell the whole through
the agency of Messrs. Farrington. For this purpose he produced the
manifestos of the cargo, and forged to them the signature of the true
master of the vessel, one Washington Case. The magistrate of the dis-
trict, who resided in another island, but who happened to arrive at Lon^r
Cay at the time, questioned the pretended master, and appears to have
had his doubts as to the truth of some of the particulars of the story.
In a report which he afterwards furnished to the governor, of the 2Uth
of April, 1863, he says:
I liad my doubts as to the vessel liavin<j been on shore at Inajjna/ancl I mentioned
my doubts to Mr. Farrington. I told him that I whvS under tlio impression that in tli»*
cargo there mi^bt be articles contraband of war, and that the reported disaster wan
but a ruse to prevent the Boston merchant being tracked in Nassau in his illicit trade
with the South. But I found out afterward, ou inciniry from the acting tide-waiter,
that the cargo was really one of provisions.
Mr. Farrington admitted that he also doubted whether the Hanover had been on
shore, but inasmuch as the captain came to him properly documehtedi he did not sec
any impropriety in his acting as the captain's agent, and that he was not aware of any
illegality in the matter — and I must here add that I am under the impression that, up
to that moment, Mr. Farrington was as ignorant of the real facts of the case as I was.
It must be remembered that the captain was a perfect stranger ; that the register and
articles of the Hanover were produced, I believe, at the collector's office, bot I know
that he had the ship's clearance, the bills of lading, and even the certificate from the
custom-house in Boston that the captain had taken the oath of fidelity to the Union.
He represented himself as Captain Case, and signed all documents a^ Washington Case,
the name of the captain as appearing on the documents.^
The schooner Brothers, having taken on board part of Ihe cargo oi
the Hanover, left with it for Nassau, taking also the pretended master:
but it seems that he only went in her as far as Rum Cay, another islautl
of the Bahamas, from which he was taken off by the Ketrlbution. The
Hanover remained at Long Cay for a day or two after the Brothers liad
left, and then seems to have sailed for some port in the Southern States.*
The manner in which the fraud which had been committed on the au-
thorities was discovered, is thus related by Mr. Bumside, the magistrate
of the district, in the report which has been already referred to :
The Hanover remained a day or two after the Brothers had left, at Long Cay, iindt*r
* United States. Documents, vol. vi., p. 736.
« Ibid., p. 740.
5 British Appendix, vol. v, p. 168. •
* British Appendix, vol. v, pp. 165, 168, and 190.
OPIXIOXS OF SIR ALEXANDER COCKCURN. 533
the charge of the former mate, takins in a cargo of salt, and it was only about half an
hour previous to her departure that I, and, I am under the impression, Mr. Farrington
al80, had the slightest misgiving that the person who had represented himself as the
captain of the Hanover was not Wahhington Case. One of the sailors of the Hanover,
nuder the influence of liquor, referred to the supposed captain in the collector's pres-
ence by some other name. I was with Mr. Farringtou when the collector mentioned
the circumstance ; reference was imme<liately made to the documents, and the differ-
euce in the signatures confirmed what the collector had heard. The supposed Captain
Case had then left in the Brothers, and no action could have been taken even if I had
been armed with power; but even then we were under the impression that the name
bad been assumed in the custom-house, in Boston, by some other person to facilitate
Captain Case^s leaving Boston, supposing him to have been a suspicious person; and
it was only after I had left Long Cay, on my w^ay to Ina|riia, that we met a vessel from
luagiia, and I received a letter from Mr. Sargent informing me that ho was under the
impression that the Hanover was a prize to the Retribution.
On the 19th of February following, the Retribution captured another
American merchant-vessel, the Eraily Fisher, in the neighborhood of
Castle Island, one of the Bahamas. The case of this vessel does not
seem to have formed the subject of any complaint either on the part of
the United States Government or of the parties interested until the
present time; and the collector of customs at Long Cay being now
()eod, there is little evidence to be depended upon as regards the pro-
ceedings at that place.
The statement, produced by the United States, of a man named
Sampson who was at the time, according to his own account, employed
at Long Cay under the orders of the United States Government as a
*'depnty marslial'^ or detective officer to look after wreckers and
blockade-runners, cannot be regarded as reliable. lie states that all
the facts connected with the capture of the vessel and the subsequent
transactions were true, "irom his personal knowledgjB," and that he had
previously testified to them before a court in New Jersey.^ But it is
ob\ious that he can have had no personal knowledge of the facts con-
nected with the cai)ture of the vessel, which took place at a distance
from Long Caj' ; and on reference to the proceedings of the trial men-
tioned, the material portion of his evidence is found to be no more than
that he saw the Retribution in the spring of 1863 at Long Cay, where
she was lying outside the Emily Fisher; that he was introduced by an
acting magistrate of Long Cay to the first and second lieutenant of the
former vessel, and " had a general talk about the North and South." ^
According to the statement on oath of Mr. Staples, the former master
of the Emily Fisher, which, however, was only made in September last,
eight years after the event, he was induced by the assurances of a cap-
tain of a British wrecking- vessel to come within range of the Retribution,
by whom he was captured. The Emily Fisher was then run on shore
by the orders of the captain of the Retribution, and wa^ taken possession
of by some wrecking boats. The vessels afterward proceeded to Long
Cay, where the master was eventually placed in ])ossession of the vessel
by the collector, but not until he had bargained with the wreckers to
pay them 50 per cent, on the cargo and 3;3j percent, on the vessel for
salvage. Staples adds that "he was told by the authorities, that
though the law would not allow the privateer to touch the brig," yet,
*'if he wished to do so, they had no means of i)reventing him ; that the
captain of the privateer told him, the deponent, that he had given the
cargo to the wreckers, as he wanted the brig ; that he was going to put
his guns on board of her and destroy his schooner ;" " that he further
told the deponent that the wreckers were to pay him something hand-
some, and that the deponent believes that they did so; that depo-
' United States Documents, vol. vi, p. 7Ii^.
* British Appendix, vol. v, p. liKi.
534 ARBITRATION AT GENEVA.
jient was obliged to a(!ce])t the wreckers' terms at the port of entry, be-
cause the brig lay under the guns of the privat^^er, and the authorities
dedared their inability to protect hiui."^
Having recovered i)ossession of his vessel and a portion of the cargo,
the master of the Emily Fisher proceeded on his voyage.
It is admitted, in a memorandum inclosed in a dispatch from the act-
ing governor of the Bahamas of the 17th of February last,
that "from inquiries which have been recently instituted,
there is very little doubt that the statements contained in the deposi-
tion of Captain Staples are substantially correct, sofarasthej' relate to
what took place in Fortune Island.''^ It seems not improbable, indeed,
that the authorities may have really been unable to atibrd any protection
tp the masterof the Emily Fisher,' the place being a small port in a re-
mote island. The magistrate, Mr. Burnside, who was at this time absent,
speaks in his report quoted above, of his inability to take action against
the supposed Captain Casej "even if he had been armed with power.'' ^
The authorities,in Mr. Burnside's absence, probably consisted only of
the customs collector, and perhaps the "assistant magistrate," mentioned
in Sampson's affidavit. It does not, moreover, appear how far Mr.
Staples made them acquainted with what had happened previously to
the arrival of this vessel at Long Cay.
The question of the capture of the Emily Fisher, as I have already
said, seems not to have formed the subject of any complaint up to the
time of the present arbitration, and all the information Jhat appears to
have reached the goveVnment at the time is contained in the followin^r
passage of Mr. Burnside's report, which shows np trace of any improper
proceedings having been committed or tolerated at Long Cay:
I have heard from Long Cay that tho Retribution, subsequent to the affair of the
Hanover, captured an American brig in the neighborhood of Osistle Ishiud — theEniily
Fisher, with a cargo of sugar — that the commander of the Retribution ordered her to
be run on shore near Long Cay, and that subsequently she was extricated from danger
by the wreckers, who carried her to Long Cay, where salvage was awarded to the
wreckers, and a portion of the cargo sold to pay the salvage and expense, and the
Emily Fisher then proceeded with the balai^ce of her cargo to New York.
On this latter occasion the Retribution did call at Long Cay, and some of her ofticers
ha<l communication with Mr. Richard Farriugton, and at that time the snpposed Wash-
ington Case was seen on board the Retribution ; l>ut I do not know in what capacity.*
There seems no ground whatever for saying that either in resi)ect to
the Hanover, or to the Emily Fisher, any charge of want of due diligence
can be sustained against the British authorities.
The Itetribution remained at Long Cay, according to the evidence af-
terward given by Mr. Farrington at the trial of Vernon Locke, not
more than a day.^ Shortly before the end of February she arrived at
Nassau, where, it must be remembered that none of her previous pro-
ceedings were at the time known to the authorities. It is stated in the
argument of the United States that^ —
The "special leave" called for by the British Government, under date of January 31.
1862, seems never to have been asked for or granted. Her commander was not evjn
called upon for his commission. All that occurred upon her arrival is thus stated by the
pilot : " She had a small gun on deck. The captain told me he was from Ixtng Cay. I
asked the captain wbere he was from. He answered, 'Long Cay.' I saw from the look
of the vessel and the appearance of the crew, their clothing, that she was likely to
be an armed vessel. I then asked him if she Avas a vcvssel of war. I begged him to
excuse my being so particular, as I was instructed to do so, to put such qaestions. Hf
told nic she was an armed vessel." ^
^ United tjtates J^icumeuts, vol. vi, pp. 7iic*, 7li9.
2 British Appendix, vol. vi, pp. 23, 24.
sjbid., p. 1G8.
* Ibid., vol. V, pp. 1C8, 109.
* Ibid., p. 11 0.
t' Page 30>.
OPINIONS OF SIR ALEXANDER COCKBURX. 535
Here tbe quotation ends, but tUe deposition of tbe pilot, when referred
to, is found to coutinueiis follows : *^ I then told him be could not go into
port.- We rounded to immediately, and came to anchor;" and the pilot
goes on to say that the captain came on shore in his boat.^
And in the evidence of Mr. Taylor, at that time tbe acting receiver-
general at Il^assau, given afterwards at the trial of the Etta, it is stated
that "the Retribution did not enter as a trader in the port of Nassau;
she was treated as a confederate vessel of war." ^ It seems obvious, there-
fore, that her character was verified and the necessary permission ob-
tained before she was allowed- to enter the port. This view receives ad-
ditional corroboration by the notice inserted in the Bahama Herald of
the 28th of February, to the following effect :
The southern gnnboat Retribution put in here on Thursday last for the purpose of
undergoinpj repairs, if permitted to do so by his excellency the governor. She has since
been condemned, and is to be sold at public auction on >^onday.^
The vessel was, as is stated in this «announcement, condemned as uu-
seaworthy by a board of survey. Her hull was sold on the 3d of March,
1863, for £250, to Messrs. Per pall & Co., merchants, of Nassau,* there
l)eing at the time no regulation to prevent the dismantling and sale of
belligerent armed vessels in British ports. By Messrs. Perpall she was
again sold for the same sum to a Mr. Thomas Stead, who was at tbe
• time a clerk to some parties engaged in the blockade-running trade.^
By him she was registered on the 10th of April, 1863, as a British vessel,
under the name of the Etta,^and it is said that an attempt was made to
run the blockade with her, but failed. In June, 1863, she was again sold
by public auction to the firm of Keuouard & Co., of Nassau, who, having
bought her for £158 and repaired her at a Cost of £200, sent her with a
cargo of fruit to New York, where she was seized/libeled in the district
court of New Jerse^^ and ultimately adjudged as forfeited to the United
States.*^
This terminates the history of the Retribution. Into the steps taken
by the authorities at Nassau for the punishment of the principal offender
it is scarcely necessary to enter in detail, as they do not affect the acts
previously committed by the vessel. They are briefly as follows : The
first information received by the governor as to the sale of the cargo of
the Hanover at Long Caj' was given in a letter dated the 11th March,
1803, from a Mr. Jackson, agent at Nassau for the American under-
writers.^ The Betribution had at this time been sold to private owners,
and although it was said by Mr. Jackson that the ofiicers of that vessel
were residing in Nassau, the attorney-general was of oi)inion that the
facts as related were not sufficient to render the parties criminally liable.^
A further representation was made on the same subject in April, 1863,
by the United States Government through the British minister at Wash-
ington. Inquiries had in the mean while been made by the governor on
tbe advice of the attorney-general, which led to the report of the resi-
dent magistrate, Mr. Burnside, dated April 20, 1863, of which I have
quoted some passages. This report rendered it clear that tbe pretended
master of the Hanover had been guilty of forgery and personation, and
* British Appendix, vol. v, p. 191. - Ibid., p. 196.
ajbid., p. 2-2. '•Ibid., p. 193.
6 Ibid., p. 21. « Ibid., p. 195.
nbid.,p. 22. 8 Ibid., p. 1G5.
« Ibid., p. 166.
I
536 ARBITRATION AT GENEVA.
the attoriiey-geueral received in the following month information point-
ing to Vernon Locke, then in the colony, as the guilty person. As the
witnesses were all at a considerable distance, the ordinary process of
obtaining sworn information on which to found a warraut would have
caused considerable delay; the attorney-general therefore availed himself
of the power given him by a local act, and issued a precept to the iwlice
magistrate at Nassau requiring him to issue a warrant against Locke.^
The latter was accordingly arrested, and, after a long examination, was
committed for trial, but escaped, forfeiting his bail. He was, however,
re-arrested and brought to trial ; but the evidence being insufficient ou
some of the essential points, he was finally acquitted.*
I have now gone through the cases of all the different vessels in rei^pect
c .-« in wi.ih of which claims have been preferred for losses sustained
1:::;;^J!j';^:';,,,';:; through the alleged want of due diligence on the part of the
'"^ British government. After all that has been said and
written, it is only in respect of two vesi<els, both equipped at the very
outset of the civil war, and before the contrivances resqrted to had be-
come known by experience, that this tribunal, which has not shown a
disposition to take too indulgent a view of tlie fulfillment of neutral
obligations, has been able to find any default in British authorities at
home; while in respect of a third, the tribunal, by a majority of one
voice only, has fixed the government with liability for an alleged error
in judgment of the governor of a distant colony in respect of allowance
of coal, and for the want of vigilance of the police in not preventing
men from joining a confederate vessel at night. We have here the best
practical answer to the sweeping charges so perseveringly brought
against the British government and people.
The tribunal having thus settled the instances in which it is prepared
to hold Great Britain responsible, we have next to consider the important
question of damages.
The first question which presents itself on approaching the subject of
*w.rOufaMin. m pccuniary compensatiou is, whether the triimnal ought to
'^""- award a sum in gross, or whether it would be advisable to
refer the amount of compensation to be Settled by assessors under the
I)rovisions 6i the treaty of Washington. On the one hand, as it is ad-
mitted that these claims have never been audited, or even been bonajidc
examined bv the Government of the United States, it must necessarilv
be extremely difticult to estimate the amount which should be awanled
in respect of them ; more especially as it becomes apparent that a large
l)roporti(m of them are most extravagant in amount, while none of the
ordinary documents evidencing the value of shipping property or mer-
chandise have been brought before the tribunal. On the other hand, it
is for many reasons desirable that the matters in dispute should be dis-
I)osed of and settled as soon as possible, so as to put an end to all
further disputes, as well as to avoid giving the opportunity, which would
be afforded by sending the settlement to assessors, to invent fresh claims
and present them from day to day before the latter. On the whole, I
have come to the conclusion that, if the clearly inadmissible claims be
rejected, and the extravagant claims properly reduced, justice may sub-
stantially be done by awarding a lump sum, and that the advantage of
such a course would counterbalance the disadvantages which it no doubt
involves.
The claims for individual losses, which were in April last advanced in
' British Appendix, vol. v, p. 23.
2 Ibid., p. 1«7.
OPINIONS OF SIR ALEXANbER COCKBURN. 537
the revised statement, amounted to $25,547,161; besides ^„,^„„j ^, ^,,i,„,
which a claim for "costs of pursuit and capture,'^ exceeding '"^""*'" """'
$7,000,000, was preferred on the part of the United States Government.
To all which was superadded a claim for interest of 7 per cent, per
annum from the times of capture until payment. These claims have,
however, to be diminished by reason of Great Britain having been pro-
nounced by the tribunal to be liable in respect only for the captures
made by the Alabama, Florida, and Shenandoa)|, and for those made by
the latter only after her departure from Melbourne. On the other hand,
the'claims in respect of the other vessels having been rejected, the repre-
sentatives of the United States, on the 19th of August last, presented
new and increased claims to the extent of $2,150,000, so that the claims
then advanced by the United States in respect of those captures, for
which Great Britain has been held liable, amount<3d, after correcting
certain admitted errors of calculation, to $19,146,444, over and above a
claim of $6,735,062 for the cost of pursuit and capture in* respect of the
three vessels, and the claim of interest at the rate of 7 per cent.
I concur entirely with the rest of the tribunal, in holding that the
claim for cost of pursuit and capture must be rejected. This < ,,i„,. f„, ^«., „,
item of expense formed part of the general expense of the ''"'*"" - ' '"'"•'
war. The cruisers employed on this service would, probably, have been
kept in commission had the three vessels in question never left the
British shores.
We have therefore only to deal with the chum for losses sustained by
individual citizens.
!Now there can be no doubt that the only damages which the tribunal
is authorized to award under the treaty for the indemnifica- tj««tion of d«m-
tion of American citizens must be confined to loss actually "^^
sustained by destruction of ships, cargoes, or personal effects. Where
damage to property arises, not directly from willful injury, but indirectly
only, from want of due care, an indemnity against actual loss is all that,
by the law of England or America, or by any principles of general juris-
prudence, can possibly be awarded.
If, therefore, this tribunal, instead of sending the amount to be paid
by Great Britain to be ascertained by assessors, should think fit to
award a sum in gross, as it is empowered to do by the treaty, it must
still, infixing the latter, proceed on the best estimate it may be enabled
to arrive at, on the data before it, of the losses actually sustained by
American citizens through the three ships for which Great Britain is to
be held liable.
The claims for individual losses by reason of property destroyed by
the three ships in question amounts to the sum of $19,146,444 ; but this
amount includes items which involve important questions of principle,
and deserve special consideration.
These are :
(A.) The cl;iimB in respect of the whaling- vessels destroyed, for loss of pros-
pective catcli) amounting to $4, 009, 301
B.) The cliiinis for gross freights, amounting to 1, 007, 153
C.) The double claims, amounting to 1, 082, 243
(v.) The new claims, presented for the first time on lUth August, amount-
ing to 2,150,000
8, H48, 6»7
!
(A.) There can be little doubt that the amount claimed for the pros-
pective catch of the whalers, which is, in fact, about double cuim. for pro*.
the value assigned to the vessels and their outfits, is so ex- p«t"«««'^»^
travaganc as almost to justify at once the rejection of the whole claim.
538
ARBITRATION' AT GENEVA.
The true character of these claims will be seen by comparing the
amount of the deuiands now made for the prospective earnings of the
whalers, with the original list of claims forwarded by Mr. Seward to Mr.
Adams in 18G0, and communicated by the latter to the British govern-
ment. It thus appears that these claims have, without any assignable
reason, increased to such an extent that they are now sometimes double,
sometimes treble, and sometimes even more than five times what they
were in the original list.* The following table exhibits some of the more
striking cases:
Alert * i
Kate Cory
Lafayette
J. lIowluDd
Claims for
original
830, 000
1,820 '
a3,44« 1
.2=<
K ^ -
SS X
3C
53, 075
$144, H'D
19, -X*:?
50. IH»
1»6, lo^r
Many other similar instances of extraordinary and arbitrary increase
might be cited, but the above will suffice to show (what, indeed, a mere
comparison of the claims themselves with the value and tonnage of the
vessels but too clearly proves) that these demands arc of a most extor-
tionate character. But, independently of the undeniably exaggerated
amount of the claims, a flemand for gross prospective earnings as dis-
tinguished from net earnings is quite incapable of being maintained.
This is admitted in the argument of the United States, and is clearly
demonstrated in the British report. According to the decisions of the
Supreme Court of the United States, the only allowance which ought
to be made in respect of prospective catch is in the nature of interest
from the time of the destruction of the vessel.^
I should myself be disposed to adopt a more liberal mode of compen-
sation, and to award for prospective profits a reasonable percentage on
the values of the vessels and outfits ; but I cannot but think that if a
year's wages is to be awarded, as proposed, for the officers and crews,
the amount of 25 per cent, on those values as claimed in the American
tables presented on the 2Cth of August, in case of the claim for pros-
pective catch being disallowed, far exceeds what is properly assignable.
The total amount claimed for the whaling- vessels and outfits, an amount,
which, as I shall presently show, bears every sign of great exaggera-
tion, is $1,780,091. A claim of $650,021 is advanced for secured earn-
ings. To award a further sum of 8400,000, as claimed, in lieu of pros-
pective profits, would make a total allowance of over $1,000,000 (or 60
per cent, of the original values of the vessels and outfits) for secured
and prospective outfits alone ] in aildition to a sum of $588,000, or more
than 30 per cent, more, for the wages of the officers and crew, (which
are supposed to come out of the gross earnings,) and this irrespective
of the fapt of interest being claimed on the whole from the date of the
capture.
• See Mr. Justice Story's judgnient iu the case of the Lively (1 Gallison, 315.) Brit-
ish Appendix, vol. vii, pp. 13, 14.
OPINIONS OF SIR ALEXANDER COCKBURN. 539
(B.) As to the claims for ^toss freights anioniiting to $1,007,153.
That these claims are also greatly exaggerated appears from the several
instances to be found commented on in the British reports, < ,,i,„, f.^^ ,r...,
but the same fact follows beyond a doubt from the follow- ^"■''*^'"-
ing consideration :
In a report presented by a committee of the House of Representatives
of the United States in 1870, a table is to be found (Table XVI) giving
the valve of the gross yearly earnings of all American vessels engaged
in the foreign carrying trade from 1861 to 1870. The value of these
gross .yearly earnings is there stated to amount to 33.^ per cent, of the
value of the vessels. On looking at the British tables it will be found
that the amounts claimed for freight, althougfi for individual voyages
not exceeding on the average 'six months in duration, are more than 47
per cent, on the alleged values of the vessels, from which it would fol-
low that these <;laims are exaggerated to the extent of nearly GO per
cent.
Independently, however, of the exaggeration in amount, it is clear
that a claim for gross freight as distinguished from 7iet freight cannot
be supported by any sound reasoning. It is, moreover, inconsistent
with all the English and American authorities on the subject.^ The
United States counsel seemed to have themselves thought such a claim
liopeless; for, on the 19th August last, they, for the first time, as-
serted that these were claims, not for gross, but for net freights. It is
sufficient on this point to say that, in the face of the well-known offi-
cial estimate above referred to, according to which the gross average
yearly earnings of American merchant- vessels amounted only to 33J per
cent, of the values of the vessels, an assertion that claims amounting to
more than 47 per cent, of such values were advanced for 7iet and not
for gross freights on voyages not exceeding, on the average, half a year
in duration, is one which carries its own refutation on the face of it,
especially when it is remembered that these claims are generally pre-
sented in the revised statement as claims for charter-party or bill-of-
lading freight.
Under these circumstances I cannot but think that the allowance of
•jO per cent, on these claims, which the tribunal received with favor and
is prepared to adopt, is far in excess of what would in justice satisfy
them,
(C) As to the double claims.
They consist in the main of claims made by the owners for the value
of their property, simultaneously with claims advanced by , ,
■r*»''. -^r t A\ J. • 1 I)(.ubli' claims.
insurance companies with whom the property was insured,
and who paid the owners the amount of their loss. To pay the owners
and the insurance companies these double claims would be clearly
equivalent to paying the losses twice over. One of these claims, there-
fore, must necessarily be rejected.
One cannot but regret that these claims should have been advanced,
and that the United States Government should not at once have ex-
punged them as inadmissible, instead of allowing them to be included,
without exception, in the total claims of the United States.
These double claims are of two descriptions: first, those which are
avowedly and intentionally made, or were, to use their own words,' '' the
claimants protest against any diminution of their claims by reason of
their having been paid by insurance companies;" secondly, those which
are tacitly made.
*See report of committee appointed bv board of trade; British Appendix, vol. vii,
pp. 9, 10.
Nj'W cliiim*.
540 ARBITRATION AT (GENEVA.
As regards the second class of double claims, viz, those tacitly made,
it is enough to observe that they were pointed out many months ago in
the British reports as double glaims, and the United States Government,
although it has had in its possession all .the evidentiary documents
bearing on the same, has never denied their character as double claims.
It is, therefore, clear that all these double claims, amounting to the large
sum of $1,682,243, "must be struck out.
(D.) As to the new claims presented, for the first time, in August last.
As a majority of my colleagues have already intimated an opinion
that these claims ought to be excluded from consideration
in awarding a lump sum, it is only necessary for me to state
that I am decidedly of tlie same opinion, because the claims are entirely
unsupported by any evidence, and are merely based upon assumptions
as to the amount of wages the officers and crews might or should have
been receiving, and the amount of personal effects which they might or
should have had on Ji)oard at the time of capture, and which they have
lost in consequence of it. I find, morever, in the revised statement pre-
sented with the United States Counter Case, claims to considerable^
amounts actually i)referred by the offi(iers of some of the vessels for loss
of wages and personal effects, and, as I shall show, those gentlemen
have been by no means disposed to undervalue their i)roperty. Finally,
it seems to me entirely inconsistent both with the letter and the spirit
of the treaty of Washington that, at the last moment, the request of the
tribunal for explanatory tables to assist it in the discussion of the various
items of claims should be taken advantage of to swell the amount
already presented, without giving the British government an opportunity
to advance argument and evidence in opposition to such increase.
For all these reasons I am clearly of opinion that the claims for
prospective catch and for gross freights, the double claims and the new
claims presented in August last, altogether amounting to the sum of
$8,848,097, must be rejected.
I now proceed to consider the questions relating to the value of the
property actually destroyed. It is admitted in the argument
iropo,,, .1, ..,ro>,.j. ^^^YiQ United States Government that these claims had never
been audite<l by that Government. I cannot help thinking it would have
been better if, before the United States called ui)ou this tribunal to
estimate the value of claims to be assessed by it without an inspe<jtion of
the documents which are said to be filed at Washington, these claims had
been audited under the authority of the United States Government. Had
this been done I think it is only fair to assume that the very numerous
demands which are manifestly extravagant would have been diminishe<l
in amount in the same manner as the claims in respect of the vessels
sunk in the Kiver Seine (more than once referred to in the British
reports) were reduced after they had been thoroughly sifted by Her
Majesty's government. Tlie tribunal is, in fact, called upon to estimate
the values of vessels, the age and class of which are not given, and the
values of cargoes, of which neither the description nor quantity is statetl.
Under these circumstances it is manifest, from the experience every day
gained in courts of justice, that a very considerable deduction ought to
be made from the estimates presented by the claimants in respect of the
losses for which they are claiming compensation. To hold Great Britain
simply liable for the amounts demanded by the claimants would not be
to award the latter fair compensation, but to grant them enormous
profits.
I now proceed to consider the values of the vessels — and, first, the
OPIMONS OF SIR ALEXANDER COCKBURX. 541'
whalers. The fact of the extraordinary express double claims advanced
in respect of these vessels is of itself snflicient to make one v.me.of wuaiin,
look with some suspicion on the other items of claim. I *''"'^'*
believe that the estimate of $100 per ton for ship and outfit, proposed in
the British reports, is such as would be accepted as adequate by persons
acquainted with the character and value of whaling- vessels. It is, more-
over, borne out by the fact that the claims fo^ insurance in the revised
statement show that these vessels were not insured at so high a value.
But I am i*eady to refer to a standard given by the claimants them-
selves. I find that, in the case of the fourteen whalers destroyed bv the
Alabama, with a total tonnage of 3,5G0 tons, a claim is advanced for
vessels and outfits of $109,233, which is equivalent to a valuatioaof less
than $115 per ton. In the case of the whalers destroyed by the Shenan-
doah, on the contrary, with a total tonnage of 8,560, the claim under the
same head amounts to $1,325,768, or very nearly $155 per ton. I cannot
see why the average value of the whalers destroyed by the Shenandoah
should so vastly exceed that of those destroyed by the Alabama, and I
certainly think the average in the latter case may be taken as likely to
be more near the mark.
As regards the merchant-vessels I see no reason to doubt that the
British average estimate of $40 per ton is adequate ; but there vniue-oi mo,chant
is one mode of arriving at an average estimate which is open ^'^^'^ ''•
to no objection. It appears from the same table, in the report presented
to the Cougi-ess of the United States already referred to, that the aver-
age value of American vessels engaged in the foreign trade was, in the
year 1861, $11 per ton, and that it has, since the year 1862, been $45
per ton. It will be found, on looking at the United States argument,
that it is there strongly urged that the depredations committed by the
confedersite cruisers occasioned a very serious diminution in the value
of American shipping property. This assertion seems directly opposed
to the statistical information given in the table I have just referred to;
but whether it be or be not correct, it cannot be doubted that an es-
timate of the merchant- vessels at the rate of $45 per ton must be a very
liberal estimate. The adoption of this valuation would cause the British
allowance to be increased by $200,000, but it would cause the claim of the
United States to be diminished by more than $500,000.
I now come to the claims for cargo. Those claims, it must be re-
membered, include claims for the value of go6ds, insurances, ^.
, ^, ., *=" 2Si.x.«T Claim* for cargw.
commissions, and profits on the same cargoes ; profits which
will be found to be claimed at the rate of sometimes 25, sometimes 50,
and sometimes a« much as 100 per cent. Moreover, it is important to
observe that, as merchants generally considerably overvalue their prop-
erty in policies of insurance, and always include in the amount insured
the premium of insurance itself, a considerable reduction ought to be
made from the amounts claimed by insurance companies. Again, for
reasons fully stated in the first British report,^ it is generally impossible
to traee the double claims which are advanced for cargoes ; and yet the
probability certainly is that they exist to at least as great an extent as
they have been proved to exist in the cases of vessels and freights.
Taking all these circumstances into consideration, I believe that most
persons who study these claims, and who are acquainted with the sub-
jects to which they relate, will consider the reduction of 12 per cent.
which has been made in the British estimate from the total claim for
cargo, commission, profits, and insurances on the same, a very moderate
reduction.
> British Appendix, vol. vii, p. J13.
542 ARBITRATION AT GENEVA.
The last item of claims to be considered is that relating to personal
( i r, .. tor prr- eft'ects. That some of these claims are exorbitant is proved
'""'"' by the various instances cited in the British reports. I will
direct attention to a few of them.
Ebenezer Nye, the master of the Abi;2:ail, a whaling-vessel of 310 tonj*,
has claimed upwards of $10,000, or £3,200, for the lo^s of personal eflfect^s
on board that vessel. Affain, the master of the Rockingham, a vessel
of 976 tons, has claimed for personal ettects $8,054, or £1,(500. In the
Wingel llacer, a passenger claims for loss of office as consul $10,000,
over and above 81,015 for loss of personal effects. Finally, in the Crown
Point, a vessel of 1,100 tons, the master and the mate each advance
claims for $10,000. Excepting in these and some other similar ca^es, in
which the demands are evidently grossly exaggerated, all the claims
for personal effects have been allowed in the British estimate, and I see
no reason w hatever for adding to the amount which is proposed to be
allowed in that estimate under this head.
On the whole, therefore, I am of opinion that if half a million dollars
were to be added to the British estimate, more than adequate compen-
sation will in all probability be granted for any direct losses which may
have been occasioned by the confederate cruisers, and that, therefore,
the tribunal ought to assess these claims at an amount not greater than
$8,000,000.
In the observations on M. Staempfli's calculations which I submitted
to the other members of the tribunal on the 2d of September, and which
will be found in the protocol of that date, I have shown that, even in-
cluding the allowances of $988,000 for profits and wages of the whalers,
and the allowance of 50 percent, on the claims for freights, and striking
a mean between the British estimate and the gross claims for the other
items not absolutely disallowed by the tribunal, the amount should not
exceed 810,000,000 in round numbers.
The tribunal having formed its estimate of the actual loss sustained
in respect of ships and property at the time of their destruc-
C* trn l<»r it lt*rp*t * *. v
tion, a most important question presents itself, whether, to
such actual value, interest from the time of loss should be superadded.
Upon this question, which is entirely in the discretion of the tribunal,
according to what it may deem equitable and right under all the circum-
stances, we have had the advantage of very able arguments. Looking
to technical considerations alone, Sir Roundell Palmer's argument ap-
pears to me to be unanswerable. But I confess I should be disposed,
when able to deal with a case of indemnity, unfettered by technical con-
siderations, as I think w^e may do in the present instance, to hold that
where a pecuniary indemnity against loss is to be given, such indem-
nity is not complete unless the party is compensated, not only for the
property actually destroyed, but for the profit — here to be represented
by interest — which that property would have brought him. If a man
loses property worth £1,000, which, but foi* the loss, he would have con-
tinued to turn to some profitable account, and after a given period the
actual value, namely, the £1,000, is given to him, and no more, it is
plain that he remains a loser of all the profit he would have realized in
the mean time ; in other words, he remains to that extent nnindemnified.
Under ordinary circumstances, therefore, I should have been willing to
award interest, when awarding compensation for property destroyed.
But there are in this case most peculiar circumstances which make me
incline to a different conclusion.
The first is, that neither the British government, nor British subjects,
were the authors of the damage done. All that can be ascribed to the
OPIXIOXS OF SIR ALEXANDER COCKBURX. 543
British governmeut is want of diligence in uot preventing these vessels
from leaving Britii^h waters on their work of mischief. Professor
Bluntschli has done justice to the British government in this respect:
II lie faut (VaiUeurs pas perdre de viie que toas ces effets d^sastreux sont en premier
lieu impntables, nou pas au gouveruement anglais, uiais a'ux croUteurn eux-mdmes. Per-
souue u'accusera le gouveruemeut anglais d'avoir donnd mission de ddtruire les navires
de commerce am^ricains, ou d'avoir, par ses agissements, entraviS ou endonimagd la
marine amdricaine. Ce que I'ou peut lui reprochor i\ bon droit, (en supposant que les
taits cit^ plus baut doiveut 6tre consid<^r6s comme avou6s ou prouv^Ss, ) ce n'est pas un
faiU mais uuo omission contre le droit. S<a faute ue consiste pas 'X avoir ^quip6 et appa-
reilld les corsaires, mais s\ n^avoirpas empeche \t5\ir armemeut et leur sortie do son terri-
toire neutre. Mais cette /antenna qu'un rapport indirect^ et nullemeut uu rapport direct,
avee les depredations r6ellement commiscs pas les croiseurs. *
American citizens have suftered by the acts of American citizens.
Great Britain is to make good the injury. Why f Because, in order to
commit these acts, the wrongdoers began by violating her laws, and
her government was not quick enough in i)reventing them. But who
were the American citizens who did these things and brought these
injuries and losses on American citizens? Private individuals^ No!
Eleven States, heretofore an integral portion, and now again an integ-
ral portion, of the North American Union — in other words, an integral
portion of the body who are the plaintiffs against Great Britain in this
memorable suit. And, to make the anomaly of the position more com-
plete, but for concessions voluntarily made, Great Britain would have
been enabled to sa^, first, that she was not, and could not be, liable to
another nation for losses sustained through breaches not of international
but of her own municipal law ; next, that if she, on the one hand, was
liable for injury done to American citizens, because her government by
greater diligence might have prevented them, she, on the other hand,
might have claimed to be recouped by States, now forming an integral
part of the Union, as having been the actual wrong-doers through vio-
lation of her law, whatever sum she was obliged to pay as compensation.
For, had the Confederate States possessed, or had they succeeded in
acquiring an independent nationality, Great Britain would have had a
perfect right to insist on being indemnified for a pecuniary loss incurred
through a violation by them of her neutrality and of her law. The
nationality of those States is now again united Avith and merged in
that of the United States, now plaintiffs against Great Britain. And
though, the compensation being asked for losses suffered by individual
American citizens, and not by the Government of the United States,
Her Majesty's government were, in my humble* opinion, right in not
taking their stand on such an objection, I cannot but think that, look-
ing to all these circumstances, this tribunal, in the exercise of the
equitable and unfettered jurisdiction with which it is invested, might
well decline to add interest to the amount of the loss actually sustained.
Even if interest should be given, it seems to me that, as the United
States might have had, as far back aa the year 1869, an arbitration for
the purpose of having these identical claims adjudicated upon, an arbi-
tration having been offered by Great Britain and accepted by the Execu-
tive of the United States, and having only failed because rejected by
the American Senate, all claim to interest, as from that date, should, as
matter of equity, be disallos^ed by the tribunal.
At all events, I can see no reason why, under all these circumstances,
anything more than the lowest rate of interest anywhere prevailing in
the United States should be allowed, and I cannot concur in the rate of 6
per cent, adopted by the tribunal.
^ " Revue de droit internatioDal, 1670," p. 473.
544 ARBITRATION AT GENEVA.
I have uow traveled through the wide range of this inquiry, partly
in order to place the facts, over which a cloud of prejudice
has been raised, in their true light ; partly to explain therea-
sons which prevent my concurring in the award which the majority of
the tribunal have thought it right to pronounce.
The result is that, while I differ from the grounds on which the de-
cision of. the tribunal in the case of the Alabama is founded, neverthe-
less, owing to the special circumstances; to which I have hereinbefore
called attention, I concur in holding Great Britain liable in respect of
that ship.
With respect to the Florida, on the best judgment I can form upon a
review of all the facts, the charge of want of due diligence is not made
out. I cannot concur in thinking that anything was left undone by the
government of Her Majesty which could be reasonably expected of
them, or the omission of which can justly subject them to the charge of
want of due diligence and care. I cannot agree that the law of Great
Britain should have been changed because of the breaking out of the
civil war. First, because the existing law was adequate to all thatcoald
reasonably be expected ; secondly, because, at all events, there was at
the time no reason for believing it other than sufficient; lastly, because
even if the law might have been improved and the handsof the Executive
strengthened with advantage, the United States could have no possible
right to expect any amendment of the British law so long as their own
remained unaltered. '
As to the Shenandoah, I cannot express too strongly my dissent from
the decision of the majority.
Not concurring in the decision as to the Florida and Shenandoah, 1
cannot, of course, concur in awarding the sum which is to be paid on
account of the damage done by them.
Even if this were otherwise, I should still hold the amount awarded
greater than it should have been.
Lastly, under the very special circumstances out of which the«e claims
have arisen, it appears to me that the allowance of interest was uncalled
for and unjust.
But while the award of the tribunal appears to me to be open to these
exceptions, I trust that, by the British people, it will be accepted with
the submission and respect which is due to the decision of a tribunal
by whose award it has freely consented to abide.
The United States, on the other hand, having had the claims of their
citizens for losses sustained considerately weighed, and compensation
awarded in respect of them, will see, I trust, in the consent of Great
Britain to submit these claims to peaceful arbitration, an honest desire
on her part to atone for any past errors or omissions which an impartial
judgment might find to have existed — and will feel that all just cause of
grievance is now removed — so that, in the time to come, no sense of past
wrong remaining unredressed will stand in the way of the friendly and
harmonious relations which should subsist between two great and kind-
red nations.
A. E. COCKBURN.
Geneva, IScptemher U, 1872.
V -REPLY OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE, ACKNOWLEDGING
THE RECEIPT OF THE REPORT OF THE AGENT OF THE
UNITED STATES, AND COMMENTING UPON THE OPINION
OF THE ARBITRATOR APPOINTED BY HER BRITANNIC
MAJESTY.
Department of State,
Washington, October 22, 1872. .
Sir: I luivo received your rejmrt of the date of September 21, with
the accompauyinp: protocols and award and opinions of Arknowu.d«in« the
the arbitrators. I congratulate you most cordially upon " ^I't^'^'^'^p^f^-
the termination of your arduous and ably-conducted labors and
upon the success which has attended the arbitration* The Presi-
dent directs me to convey to you and to the counsel who attended
the tribunal on the part of the United States, and to the other gentle-
men who were engaged with you at Geneva, the exi)ression of his thanks
and high appreciation of the great ability, learning, labor, Th..pn«id.nt'».p-
and devotion to the intereste, the dignity, and honor of the '*'*''"'
nation which each in his appropriate sphere has made so successfully'
conducive to the very satisfactory result which has been reached. This
result may be summarily stated thus : The United States claimed that
Great Britain had, during the recent rebellion in this country, failed, by
act and by omission, to fulfill toward this Government the duties due from
one state to another, and that she was liable in damages to make good
the losses resulting directly from the acts of several vessels which had
been fitted out and had been allowed to depart from her ports in viola-
tion of such duties. The United States also deemed it important to
obtain from the tribunal an expression of opinion wiiether certain
claims for indirect or remote losses, which had boen advanced a^ the
time of their occurrence, and had been the subject of mc^ch diplo-
matic correspondence, as well a» of public discussion, and which had not
been eliminated in the previous negotiations from the matters of differ-
ence between the two governments, did or did not constitute good
foundation for demand or award of damages between nations.
Great Britain denied that she had failed of Jiny duty toward this Gov-
ernment, or that she was liable to make good any losses resulting, either
directly or indirectly, from any such acts.
The questions at issue between the two governments were hy the
treaty referred to the? decision of the High Tribunal which convened at
Geneva.
The arbitrators, having the case and the counter case of both govern-
ments and the argument of the counsel of the United States .^^ ^^ ^^
before them, at their session on the 19th of June stated nr5^"r«'!rn'lhoU'^
that, "after the most careful perusal of all that has been '^'"^' '"'*''"'
urged on the part of the Government of the United States in respect of
these claims, they have arrived, individually and collectivelt/j at the.con-
clnsion that these claims do not constitute, upon the principles of inter-
national law applicable 'to such cases, good foundation for an award of
compeujsation or computation l>f damages between nations,'- At the.
35 B '
54(5 ARBITRATION • AT (JENEVA.
next meeting of the arbitrators you stated that that ^'declaration made
by the tribunal, individually and collectively," • • • was " accepted
by the President of the United States as determinative of their judgment
upon the important question of public law involved."
At the next meeting, the agent of Her Britannic Majesty read a state-
Knur of in.u,n.nt lucnt that Her Majesty's government, being informed of
o,. tb.. .ndm^t cia.i,.,. ^jj^ statemcnt made by you at the previous meeting, as-
sumed " that the arbitrators will, ujyon such statement^ think fit now to
declare that the said several claims are, and from henceforth will be,
wholly excluded from their consideration, and will embody such decla-
ration in their proctocol of tiiis day's proceedings;" which declaration,
at this request of the agent of the British government, was made, thus
excluding, by the act of the tribunal, from future consideration claims
which, until then, hatl been the subject of controversjik
This conclusion may be regarded as decisive of the non-admissibility
K.r.ri «« tin, ju.i« of claims for such remote or consequential losses as the
""'"'■ foundation of a demand for compensation in damage as
between nations, under the principles of international law.
These controverted claims being thus eliminated, the tribunal pro-
Ti.*.n«ard«f t*u cccdcd to thc cousidcratiou of the other claims, ami of
tnbmwi. ^jjg case, counter case, and arguments on either side, and on
the 14th of September declared that Great Britain had, with respect to
three of the vessels and four of their tenders, of which complaint had
been made, failed to fulfill duties toward this Government, and awarded
the payment to the United States of the Sum of $15,500,000 in gold, as
the indemnity to be paid by Great Britain to the United States for the
satisfaction of all the claims referred to the consideration of the tri-
bunal.
Your report bears testimony to the high character, the patient labor,
the learning, impartiality, and dignity of bearing of the
ni??y!omKnrJffh'.; emincut persons named as arbitrators by thfe friendly pow-
»,y Italy. s,vitz. ri«n.i, crs which complicd with the joint request of this Govem-
Hnd Bra..i. mcut aiid that of Her Britannic Majesty.
Mr. A(Iam9^ on this as on all occasions of his public service, fulfilled
Mr.AH^Tn.r«on.. thc cxpcctations to which his appointment gave rise. It is
Ill^ni^S'lgVit ""nil of gratifying to know that his course, and the ability displayed
thr i>rc..uip..t# gy jj|,n^ have received the acknowledgment of Her Majesty's
government, to which the President Has united his acknowledgment.
I find on reference to the protocol No. 32, accompanying your report,
and containing a record of the proceedings of the tribunal
«„Lon.orV.rXi;? of arbitration on the 14th of September, that after the
anucr c«kbur.L siguaturc of thc decision and award of the tribunal by the
four assenting arbitrators, and after the same had been delivered to the
agents of the two governments. Sir Alexander Cockburn, the arbitrator
named on the part of Great Britain, having deolined to assent to that
decision, made a statement of his own, which the tribunal ordered to
be recorded as an ann^x to the protocol.
It does not appear by the protocol that the document which was thus
Ti,i. opinion not ordcrcd to be annexed was read at the time. Indeed, youi
MrVoiieiitei""*"'" report on the subject shows that that paper was presented
at the last moment of the final sitting of the tribunal, and that the con-
tents thereof were not made known to the other members of the tribr.
njTl or to the agent or counsel of the XJuited States.
I cannot doubt that if you had had the opportunity to become ac
If thr confnfQuainted with the conten^ of this extraordinary document
-houilTh^tt-'b^nou- you would have felt it your right and duty, to object to the
jrrx.du.. reception and filing of a paper which would probably not
REPLY* OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE. 547
have been officially received by the tribunal bad an opportunity been
afforded to invite their attention to some of its reflections on this Gov-
ernment, its agent, and counsel.
It is not my intention to discuss or to comment upon the tone and
character of tins very remarkable paper, professedly submitted to one of
. the highest tribunals the world has witnessed, sitting to decide some of
the gravest and most important questions ever submitted to peaceful
decision.
But in this paper (which is officially published in a supplement of the
London Gazette, dated September 24, 1872) Sir Alexander sirA.cockburnpm-
Cockburn professedly and avowedly speaks of himself on rTpTe"eTi''atrvr*'o.
two occasions as *' sitMng on this tribunal as in some sense «'^''»» ""**'«-
the representative of Great Britain."
The Government of the United States here has no occasion to pass
judgment on tbis attitude of the arbitrator named by Great Britain. I
take tke fact as I find it. I perceive that Sir Alexander Cockburn,
while advancing as public law opinions which are " imblished by au-
thority " of the British government, professes to be in some sense the
representative of that government. It is in this sense that he speaks
in the expression of his seasons for dissenting from the decision of the
other members of the tribunal, and, therefore, the Government of the
United States may rightfully take him at his word a.s speaking for Great
Britain.
The x)ositions which he thus maintains in behalf and as the repre-
sentative of his government ^esetve to be noted for their R««„H,oftbepo.
value in possible future questions. '^xS^ri^r^lili^^
He holds that whatever restrictions the neutral in the «f ««»» unuin.
exercise of his territorial rights imposes on the one belligerent, he must
impose on the other also.
As the discussion grows out of the case in which one of the belliger-
ents is a legitimate Government, in treaty-amity with the neutral, and
the other a rebel in arms against that legitimate Government, it is to be
assumed that the proposition applies with especial force to such a case.
He maintains as a rule that the government of a country can only be
held responsible for the breaches of neutrality committed by its sub-
jects when it may reasonably be expected to prevent them. Such a rule
seems to favor neutral right in the same degree that it diminishes neu-
tral obligation, which it measures by the vague standard of what is rea-
sonable.
He maintains the right of the subjects of a neutral to supply to the
belligerent any objects available for warlike purposes, including as;
well ships of war (even armed ships) as arms and munitions, provi<)edi
the same be done animo commercan^ and not animo odjuvandL
A rule so unqualified, and subject only to the belligerent right of
blockade and of capture for contraband, is a very broad assertion o£
neutral right.
In discussing the question, of due diligence, and doing so with the
actual case in his mind, he reduces as far as he may ihe standard of
diligence in favor of the neutral.
He insists on the right of the neutral when cajled upon to restrain.its.
.subjects to proceed in conformity with the spirit of its legal institutions,,
according to its established system of official routine, with such legal.
advice as the government is accustomed to receive.
He piaintaius that the neutral government is not to be held respon-
sible for error in judgment, nor for declining to seize a vessel at the in-
stance of the belligerent on merely suspicious circumstances, seGraingly
548 ARBITRATION AT OENEA'A.
inadequate to convict, uor for miscarriage of justice through some mis-
take of the courts, nor for error of judgment on the part of subordinate
officers of the government.
His views relative to the alleged unfriendliness of tljje British minis
ter toward the United States and that of the British subjects and col-
onies, amounts to complete justification of any degree of ftympathy on tbe*
part of the authorities or subjects of a neutral government in favor of
the rebels of any other government, and tends to exonerate govern-
ments and subjects alike from any obligation of goodwill toward a treaty
friend, the suiiering legitimate Government.
His conclusions on the question of recognition of belligerency ac
corded to rebels in arms preclude any possible exception on the score
of prematureness or other circumstances.
His response to the allegation in the case of the United States, thai
Great Britain, including her colonies, was the arsenal, the navy-yard,
and the treasury of the insurgents, assumes that on recognition of the
belligerency of rebels they became possessed of equal right with the
legitimate Government in the ports of the neutral. xVud yet the coo
cession of belligerency to insurgents does not, in his view, give to tbe
legitimate Government anj' cause of complaifit against the neutral gov
ernment.
He unequivocally justifies the use of the ports of the Bahamas ami
of Bermuda as entrepotn for blockade-running cargoes, and the traus
shipment of the latter into lighter craftf tlins favoring neutral right and
protecting the exercise of that right in a manner most favorable to a
feeble belligerent, and especially to insurgents as against their govern
inent.
He maintains the right of the neutral government to abstain from tbe
exercise of spontaneous activity for the repression of attempts of its
subjects to violate neutrality, and to require the representative of a
belligerent power asking the aid of the government to make out a case
for the application of the law, just as it is left to do to an ordinary
individual who desires to put the laws in motion in order to obtain
redress in his own behalf.
There are other assertions of important neutral right, but these an-
among the most important. They seem all to be available in a possibk
future to the United States. They are announced by the " representa
tive" of the British government in the tribunal at Geneva, and an-
'* published by authority" of that government, without dissent or quali
fication.
It is not my present purpose to discuss these various positions. Some
Kffrct of th.. «.„. of them are in evident conformity with the views of public
i^rrrlii'' n'ihu'^ «3 policy hitherto expressed or practiced by the United Statt-N
obi.f«iion». j^^^ jjqIj always admitted by Great Britain, while some or
them are in qualification, if upt in substance, the result of modem
events, and especially of recent controversy between the Unite<i
States and ^reat Britain. It needs but the most cursor^^ glance a:
the mass of correspondence and of other documentary matter submittK
to the tribunal of arbitration to see how thoroughly the remonstrances
and protestations of the Government of the United States against the
conduct of Great Britain have quickened and stimulated the Euroiwau.
and above all the British, mind into more careful examination ami
more complete perception of the rights and obligations of neutra'
powers, for the question of rights is inseparjible from that of oM:
gations. In every case of war we have to consider alike what art
the rights of the neutral as against both belligerents, and what aiv rt*
UEPLY OF THE SECREl^ARY OF STATE. 549
duties as respects either belligerent. In effect, the occurrence of war
between any two powers involves more or less modification of the free-
dom of action of the neutral, either by land or by sea. But freedom of
action is the general right of every sovereign power, although in time of
war such power yields a portion of its freedom, that is, of its general right,
to th^ just demand of one or the other of the belligerents. It should be
expected to yield the least possible of that general freedom that will
allow it to be neutral in fact, for this constitutes the obligation of the
neutral. On the other hand, each belligerent is entitled to demand of
the neutral in profession that it should be neutral in fact. The United
States have had occasion to look practically at both sides of the ques-
tion, and therefore sometimes to assert neutral duties, while more gen-
erally asserting neutral rights and the policy of peace, to such extent
and under such circumstances as to have rendered the United States the
champion of neutral rights, and thus by moral influence to have acted
* potentially on the course of events in Europe.
History repeats itself.
I cannot err, therefore, in thinking it important to note for future
memory the positions in this respect maintained by the Theimpormnceof •
^* representative ''of the British government at Geneva, and iTi"?pJiL'taiTveoI
that representative the Lord Chief Justice of England. ^^nv""^"^ *"'*™
I am, sir. vonr obedient servant,
HAMILTON FISH.
Hon. J. C. Bancroft Diviy,
tCc, d-c\, etc.
VI -REPORT OF THE COUNSEL OF THE UNITED STATES.
Washington, November 25, 1872. (Received November 2G.) .
Sir : We have the honor to report that, in conformity with your in
structiou of the 8th of December, 1871, we repaired to Earope at as early
a day thereafter as possible, in the discharge of onr duty as counsel of
the United States before the tribunal of arbitration established by the
treaty of Washington.
While occupied in the preparation of the Counter Case of the United
States and of the general argument, in their behalf, we found it advan-
tageous to dwell in Paris for convenience of access to books of diplomacy
and jurisprudence, and also of ready communication with Liondon and
with Washington.
In June we proceeded to Geneva, and continued there until the close
of the proceedings before the arbitrators, occupied in constant attend-
ance on them, and in the preparation and presentation of various ad-
ditional arguments in response to such arguments as had been specifi-
cally required of Great Britain by the tribunal. We refer the Depart-
ment to the Counter Case and document»accompanyingthe same, to the
main argument in behalf of the United States, to the successive subse-
quent arguments, and to the correspondence of the agent of the United
States, for complete information regarding our acts as counsel for the
Government.
^ In now terminating our connection with this great international caase,
we beg to be allowed to express the hope that the President will see in
the final award of the tribunal proof that we have not been wanting to
the important trust which he confided to us.
And we remain, &c.,
C. GUSHING.
WM. M. EVABTS.
M. K. WAITE. .
VII-APPEKDIX.
OPINION& OF STATESMEN, MAGAZINES AND JOURNALS OtT GREAT BRITAIN
AND THE CONTINENT ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE TREATY OF
WASHINGTON.
I.
Kj-tractH from MpeecheH made in a debate in the Houtte of Lord/fy 4//i of June, 187'2.
(From tlio Times of June 5, 1872.]
The Eaiil of Dehhy rose and said :
• * « • « Everybody knows that we pnt one construction on the treaty and
that the American negotiators put another. The noble carl [Earl Granville] stat-ed that
he conceived the indirect claims were excluded by the treaty as it stands. Now, that
matter has been abundantly discussed in both houses, in every newspaper, in every
private societj', and I think the very utmost for which any one unconnected with the
government has ever confended is this, that the language of the treaty was so vaguf),
HO ftmbiguous, so uucertain, that it may be construed eithcr«way, and, therefore, our
construction was as admissible as that put npon it by the other side. Now I do not
think that in a matter of such enormous importance, after the plain warniug which
hatl been given us by the speech of Mr. Sumner, after the evidence we had had of the
immense oonsequence which the American Government and people attach to these
indirect claims, and the pertinacity with which they had nrged them, I do not think
it is at all unreasonable to say that in a matter of that kind uncertainty and ambig^iity
in the language of the document to which you must appeal as the supreme authority'',
upon the matter are not likely to inspire confidence. I will not go into the controversy
raised by my noble friend. He says the indirect claims, even if in the treaty,
are waived in the protocol, and he referred to the qnestion which has often, been dis-
cussed as to the meaning of the words 'amicable settlement.' Now, the obvious
answer to that has often been given. An arbitration is not an amicable settlement. It
is a means by which an amicable settlement may be arrived at, 1)nt it is not itself a
settlement. I do not want to go into that question, for it is enough for my argument
to say that in a matter of this kind, with the full knowledge that we have had oC
what was claimed by the other side, and considering the immense importance of the
matter at issue, there ought to have been no doubt or uncertainty.''
Lord Cairns said:
* * * • «< We have had conflicting views as to the construction of the
treaty fully before us; and now I tell the uoble earl that I accept his reference to
judicial claims as no compliment, accompanied, as it is, with a sneer that I am capa-
ble of making a constraction of a document in one place differ from that I should
give in another. [Loud cheers.] My lords, I will tell the noble earl something more.
He saya he Hklked with a judge half an hour before he entered this house, and he said
that the indirect claims were clearly inadmissible. The noble earl speaks of what has
been said by very learned persons in 'this conntry and elsewhere, but he quite misun-
derstands what those learned persons spoke abont. What I understand them to be
talking abont — and I quite agree with them — I believe that no judge would say that
these indirect claims could be admitted for a moment ; but that is not the question j
the qnestion is, whether the hands of the tribunal at Geneva are sufficiently tied and
bound so that they would not be the judges to say whether these are good claims or
bad claims. [Hear, hear.] That is what we want to know — that is what my noble
and learned friend, who spoke last but one, put very fairly. He said, with re^rd to
the supplementary article, that what the commissioners ought to have done, if they
had understood their business, was to have added a new article to exclude these claims.
I agree that the claims are preposterous, and that the country and the government
never meant to entertain them. But the question is, what ought to be odr view aS to
the construction of this treaty ? The noble marquis,-the president of the council^
taunted the noble marquis behind me with having thought it consistent with his duty
to make observations which were highly iu favor of the American view of the case.
552 AKHITKATION AT (JENEVA.
" I claro say I shall ho tuuntcd, perhaps, in the same way. But I will tell the noble
marquis what I consider consistent Avith my duty. I consider it consisteift with my
duty to speak the truth — [cheers] — and I don^t care whether it chimes in with the
views of the Government of the United States or the government of this country.
[Hear, hear.] The noble earl opposite taunted me with havinf; an opinion on this
subject which I am afraid to express. I go further, and say that in my belief the
strong argument with the United States is not lo insist, as the governuient have in-
sisted, that the construction of this treaty is free from all ambignity. 'The govern-
ment never made a greater mistake than when they went to the United States in the
lirst instance, and said^o them, ^ Y'ou arc making claims not 0UI3' against all i»rinciple,
but in flagrant opposition to the treaty/
*' I say, generous and high»spirited men could not have endured language of that
kind without making a cont<^st and. struggle against it. [Hear, hear.] Now, I tell
the noble earl my view about the construction of this treaty. The prime minister
says there is no ambiguity ;• that no sane person could have ever entered into a treaty
which had such a construotion as America had put on it. The noble earl himself, i
believe, in his dispatches uses language peculiarly strong in regard to the con.struction
of the treaty. The eommissionera tell us they were responsible for having represcnteci
to the government that they understooil a promise to be given that these claims wonld
not be put forward by the United States, and to-night the noble carl said that on a
particular day the government received a communication from the commissioners say-
ing that the claims were not to be piit forward.
** What is the meaning of this ? Why were the commissioners to write to the gov-
ernment and say that a promise was given that these claims would not be put forward
if the treaty was free of ambiguity f The two things cannot stand together. Take
which you like — the treaty is unambiguous, or atlmit that it is not clear, and rest on
the promise given by the commissioners ; but yon cannot have both. I believe that if
you refer any breach of duty to the decision of a tribunal, that tribunal, unless yon tie
up its hands, will have the right, to say what are the extent and the amount of the
damage done. # • # * # » » •
"1 admit that in Mr. Adams's time, the indirect claims had not been distinctly statetl;
but in 18(>8-69we had distinct authority as to what had become known as the Alabama
claims. That authority is the noble earl opposite, who, last year, before this contro-
versy had arisen, described to the house what the Alabama claims had by oitfcial cor-
respondence come to mean. Commenting on the terms of the Stan)ey -Johnson and
Clarendon-Johnson conventions, the noble earl said the claims of the American Gov-
ernment had come to conclude everything, and, therefore, that under the reference
proposed in those conventions, almost unlimited damages might have been awarded to
the American Government. How then can it be said that the Alabama claims repre-
sented a bundle of strictly detiued claims, and that the term could not possibly bo ex-
tended beyond these f The next argument is that the protocol of the 4th of May cor-
tains a waiver by the American Government of the indirect claims. I wish I conid
find it to be so ; but I do not find that the American (lovemment waived anythin*;.
[Hear, hear.] The American commissioners simply said they wanted us to give them
a lump sum ; and in the hope of our doing so they would not estimate for the present
the amount of the indirect claims.
''After referring to the indirect injury accruing from the transfer to the BritisU flag ot
a large part of the American mercantile marine, enhanced rates of insnrance, the pro-
longation of the war, and the large sum necessarily retiuired for this and for the sap-
pression of the rebellion, the protocol says : ' In the hope of an amicable settlemeDt,
(meaning the payment of a lump sum,) no estimate was made of the Indirect losses,
without prejudice, however, to the right of indemnification in the event of no sach set-
tlement being made.' In this I can see no waiver whatever. I have no faalt to find
with the manner in which the noble earl conducts the argument on this p<flnt in his
correspondence. The whole of the case on this s^ibject is stated by him with great
fairness and frankness, and it is surely better to be frank and fair than, ostrich-like, to
run our heads into the sand and fancy that this secures our safety. The noble carl's
argument is that the waiver of the indirect claims in the event of the amicable settle-
ment proffered by the American commissioners was a waiver which applied to any
€orm of amicable settlement, and, therefore, applied to the form proposed by the British
commissioners, and accepted by the United States. That is the whole argnment on
this part of the case. The American commissioners, in the hope of an amicable settle-
ment by the payment of a gross sum, made no estimate of the indirect losses ; the
British commissioners declined such a mode of settlement, and Her Majesty's govern-
ment maintain that the Americans were bound not to put forward those claims, what-
ever the form 9f settlement. *•»*••*♦•
" I uelieve the first copy of the American Case was furnished to the foreign office on
the 17th of IK'cember, and that twelve additional copies were supplied on the 19th of
that month. ' We nil know that the noble earl opposite was sufi'ering from illness at
th'e time ; and I am sure that there is no one among ns who would impute to him that
APPKNDIX. 553
■
there was any uiiueccKHary delay on bfs part, or who does uot sympathize with him in
the positiou in which ho was placed. That, hosvever, is not the qnestioij. I ^o not
know whether many of yonr lordships have looked at the case of the American Govern-
ment. There is an old saying, which is applicahle to it, to the effect that he who runs
may read. You could see from the very title-page of their case that they w^ere making
these cinims. And who were at the foreign oftice at the time ? There was Lord Ten-
terden, who, as the noble earl said, was one pf the very few men in England who were
thoroughly acquainted with this question. There was also Mr. Hammond, at the for-
eign officQ, and I confess I can hardly believe that when Lord Tenterden or Mr. Ham-
mond opened the first copy of the American Case, either could have failed to see in the
course of tivo minutes that the United States Government were making those claims —
claims, the surrender of which was proclaim'ed by the noble earl opposite to be the
l)rice of the treaty. [Hear. J A month after this, on the 18th of January, the cabinet
sat, and although I can imagine that tho.falling of a bomb-shell could scarcely have
created greater surprise and consternation among them than the American Ciise, yet
some considerable time was allowed to elapse before anything was done, although the
matter lay on the surface. The question was one not so much for the law-advisers of
the Crown as for the ministers who had negotiated the treaty, and who had informed
the country that its price was the surrender of the indirect claims.''
• H.
Kjftract from Fra«er^H JJagazinv, March, 1H72.
•
• " » • » • We cannot but deeply regret the whole coui*so of procedure which
has been pursued by us, both in ofhcial and uon-ofticial quarters, since the publication
of the American Case. Whatever '* blundering '*' may have been evinced in the draw-
ing tip of the unfortunate treaty, there has been much more and more unseemly and
perilous blundering since, in the babel of clamor and' denunciation With which tile pre-
tensions put forward in the American Case, founded upon it, have been received. In
this remark we refer not so much to the press, which is *' nothing if not critical," and
which, having no recognized authority, incurs none of that responsibility which
attaches to authority. We utterly reject and discountenance the unworthy sugges-
tion put forth by some American journals, that the meaningless and ignoble cry of dis-
tress and remonstrance which broke out from *^ the usual organs of public opinion " on
this subject at the beginning of the year, was instigated by Her Majesty's ministers,
with a view of diverting attention from other disagreeable questions which they felt
to be impending over their heads, or even of removing from their own shoulders the
weight of any odium which might attach to all who had had any part in this unfortu-
nate afifair of Washington ; but we at the same time think it to be a circumstance
much to be deplored, that those ministers should have so far forgotten the dignity of
their station, and that of the sovereign whose servants they are, as to allow themselves
to follow, and to drag the Crown with them in the wake of such a miserable escapade.
The conduct- of ministers, instead of being such as to re-assure public feeling, and to
support the character of the country before surrounding nations, has been undignified,
and fall of inconsistencies, as well as being, as we believe, utterly without precedent
in the history of international relations. It was without precedent, without justifica-
tion, and at the cost of infinite inconvenience and scandal, that the government intro-
duced into t^ Queen's speech any reference at all to matters in dispute, which had
been formerly delegated to the discretion of a tribunal of arbitration.
It was a still greater violation of the rules of etiquette applicable in such cases, as
well as a derogation of thp dignity of the nation, to add that ** a friendly communica-
tion " had been made to the Goverment of the United States, with a view, as wa9
understood, of inducing them to withdraw from and recall part of the ^'Case'' which
they had in due fonn, and according to the provisions of the treaty, placed before the
tribunal. But, in truth, whatever hope there might have been of extracting anything
from the generous humor of the Government on the other side of the Atlantic though
this humiliating appeal was, on the very evening when the fact was announced,
dashed to the ground by tho violent, dogmatic, and gfiensive language of the intract-
able premier, who, far from imitating the judicious reserve of the noble lord, his col-
league, at the head of the foreign office, noisily challenged the whole world to dispute
bis own construction of th» terms of the treaty as being ** the meaning, the only mean-
ing, the rational meaning, the direfft grammatical meaning.'' Now, to any one with
more discriminating perceptions than Mr. Gladstone, such a declaration as this could
only imply that the Government of the United States, supposing it to be gifted With
ordinary intelligence, must have been guilty of deliberate disbouesty and attempted
extortion, in putting forward demands which were to be thus emphatically repudiated
554 ARBITRATION AT GENEVA.
by the rij;ht honorable p^cntleinan. Conid it be wondered at if tbe latter Government
in the fftll coBsciousness of the additional strength which its opponent's fatuous dis-
play of weakness has aiibrded them, should, without betraying any show of irritated
feeling, simply reply to our ^' ftiendly communication'' by announcing their determi-
nation to leave the whole matter, upon its merits, in the hands of the arbitrators f
This we are inclined to believe that they actually did " by return of cable," thon^ Mr.
Gladstone, in reply to an inquiry a few days ago, stated that the government had not
received any official reply, and did not expect to receive one till the Ist of March ;
which would thus enable them and the country to tide over the *^ Thanksgiving Day '^
in peaceful insouciance.
But, indeed, even had Mr. Gladstone, doing violence to his nature, been ever so
conrteous and conciliatory in tone, and the Washington Government ever so gener-
ously disposed, how could the latter, with any regard to their responsibilities and the
dignity of statesmanship, make any other reply than we presume them to have done f
Individuals acting on their own account, and rulers of states, having the interests of
their constituent members in their hands, are very differently sitnated,'and most act
upon different principles in respect of enforcing claims, or demanding reparation for
injuries — a subject very clearly treated of by the highest juridical authorities. An indi-
vidual, acting on his own account, may permit motives of kindness or weakness to
influence him in abstaining from pressing to the fullest extent his just claims, and
even in pardoning an injury received. But the sovereign of a state, who is but the
trustee of the rights of liis subjects, may not exercise a discretion of this sort, unless
justified by special considerations, rendering it, in his opinion, expedient in the gen-
eral interests of the state. There is always, in tiro case of states, in addition to the
consideration of the simple material advantages in dispute, the character of the nation
for honor and magnanimity, which must not be suffered to be brought in question.
And this brings us to the reflection that there are other parties beside the actual liti-
gants who are entitled to honorable consideration in this matter, but who, uiiforta-
nately, have been by implication subjected to unexampled indignity through the irreg-
ular discussions which have been permitted to take place, namely, the worthy mem-
bers of Ihe Geneva court of arbitration and the sovereign states, who, at the joint re-
quest of the contending parties, have nominated them.
It need scarcely be pointed out that in matters in litigation before an ordinary tribu-
nal the discussion of a case out of court is justly visited and resented as an act of
'^contempt.'' Sovereign states cannot commit one another to "durance vile" for
breach of discipline ; and so long as the discussions of the points of disagreement in
the Washington treaty were confined to the columns of the newspapers, the members
of the Geneva arbitration court had, perhaps, nothing to complain of, or, at any rate,
no ground of complaint npon which they would deem it necessary to seek redress.
But the case is different when the legislature of one of the states in disagreement takes
up the discussion, and when the prime minister of that state insists upon laying down
the law in the case, and, by necessary logical interference, precluding the court of
arbitration from giving any decision other than that which Mie has dictat-ed. It is,
moreover, a flagrant breach of the good faith whfch should exist between states, to
even hint at retiring from an arbitration, or repudiating its award, in case it shonld
be in any way at variance with one's own notions. There is no department of its
functions in which a sovereign state takes more pride than in the exercise of its ** good
ofllces/' whether in the way of mediation or arbitration, and any show of recasaocy
against them, once they have been accepted, becomes a grave offence before the world,
susceptible of being visited by any form and any amount of resentment.
''As the case stands, the country is clearly iu the hands of the arbitrating xK>weTs,
to abide their award, whatever it may be. And however stupid, howevevA- * scandal-
ous ' in * blundering,' our representatives may have been in drawing up this dismal
treaty, let us hope, in Mr. Gladstone's despite, that there may be sufficient ' ambiguity'
in it to enable the arbitrators, having regard to the rules which regulate the reason-
a'ble and equitable interpretation of treaties, having regard also to the supreme inter-
est of peace, of which they are gnardians, to give an award favorable to, or at least not
BO disastrously prejudicial to us as has been anticipated by alarmist speculators, wbo,
there is too much reason to apprehend, have not been altogether free from stock-job-
bing influences.'
III.
Kxtractfrom Franct^s Magazine, June, lo7^.
«#•#»,♦ All the vast social power which the governing classes of Eujirland
possess w'as thrown into the scale against whatsoever remained of the American
Kepublic, and in favor of those who were striving to bring part of it at leasts into
accordance with the decrees of that Providence in which governing classes believe.
F.
ArPEXDIX. nOi)
There has always been a teiideDcy to take the prattle of London society, and the
rattDf; of the press which delights to repeat it, as the public opinion of the country,
t is not surprising, thorefofe, that the government of the day should have been
affected by this influence. But what is surprising is, that they should have shown
snch^ utter recklessness and want of caution in publishing to the world their apprecia-
tion of the merits of the struggle, and their opinion as to its issue. That Kr. Glad-
stone, who had adopted Mr. Jevmi's opinion that coal was coming to an end in Eng-
land, should have adopted society's opinion that the republic was coming to an end in
America, is not strange ; but it is strange that he did not keep his opinion a Mttle more
to himself. How positive he was in the matter may be judged from these words,
uttered by him in October, 1862 : •
" There is no doi\bt that Jefferson Davis and other leaders of the South have made
an army. They are making, it appears, a navy ; and they have made what is more than
either — they hare made a nation. We may anticipate with certaitity the success of the
Southern States so far as regards their separation from the North. I cannot but be-
lieve that that event is as certain as any event yet future and contingent can bo.^'
Mr. Gladstone was still of this opinion in June, 186^, when he said :
" I do not believe that the restoration of the American Union by force is attainable.
******** I do not believe that a more fatal error was ever c(fmmitted
than when men^-of high intelligence, I grant, and of the sincerity of whose philan-
thropy I for one will not venture to whisper the smallest doubt — came to the conclu-
sion that the emancipation of the negro race was to be sought, although they could
only travel to it by a sea of blood." * * .
There spoke the spirit of the Liverpool slave-trader and the confederate bondholder
rather than of the English statesman and chancellor of the exchequer. Lord Russell
had already said, in October, 1861 : *' We now see the two parties (in the United States)
contending not upon the question of slaverj' — though that I believe was jirobably the
original cause of the quarrel — but contending, as so many States in the Old World
have contended, the one side 4ot empire, and the other for independence." These
speeches have, no doubt, since been repented of, but they are good evidence to show
the views which existed at that tiitie in the cabinet. Not that they existed alone
eith\;r. Sir George Cornewall Lewis, Mr. Charles Villiers, and Mr. Milner Gibson, had
from the first struggled against them, and hud been regarded with the respectful pity
accorded to clever men for once in the wrong. They were, however, in a hopelesK
minority of three out of fifteen, and it is not too much to say that, as a body, the gov-
ernment looked, and was known to look with confidence and without displ«:ianre to a
disruption of the American Union. * • • ■•
* * * * At the conference of March 8, the American commissioners formally
advanced their claim for losses both direct and indirect, stating, however, that " in the
hope of an «micable settlement no estimate was made of the indirect losses, without
prejudice, however, to i^emnification on their account, in the event of no such set-
tlement being made.'' And they proposed that the joint commission should " agree
upon a sum which should be paid by Great Britain to the United States in satisfaction
of all the claims.^' This offer, if accepted, would have effectually and forever ended
the whole matter ; it was, however, refused, and the English commissioners renewed
their proposal for arbitration. Now, it has been said that, in proposing arbitration,
they did, in effect, assent to an '* amicable settlement," and that the treaty is in fact
that, and nothing more. To which the reply is obvious, that the payment which the
Americans proposed was an absolute settlement, whereas the treaty settles nothing
absolutely, providing only machinery for an amicable wrangle, in order to a settle-
ment.
The difference is obvious. In making an " amicable settlement" as* proposed, wo must
have .admitted our faults and paid for them ; in agreeing to the treaty we admitted no
fault, and merely exposed ourselves to the risk of payment in case the arbitrators de-
cided against us. In the first case the United States would have gained everything ;
in the second they run the risk of losing everything. The Americans agreed, however,
to arbitration on condition that the principles to govern the arbitrators should be laid
down. Thereupon were elaborated the famous three rules as to which the British (gov-
ernment is made in the treaty to assert that they were first invented for this occasion,
and are not a correct " statement of the principles of international law." The most
careful examination of the rules fails, however, to show in what they differ from those
principles as universally enunciated, and as admitted by England at the time. The
seJ^nd rule indeed, apparently, extends the obligations of the neutral power to the
extent of requiring it absolutely " not to permit or suffer " the use of its ports or waters
as a base of naval operations, or for the renewal or augmentation of military supplies or
arms ; but this must be read by the light of the third, which prescribes " due diligence "
as the measure of fulfillment of the obligations in question. The fact is that these
rules are so hopelessly vague that they would cover almost any view of international
law everpropoundetlj and the danger of them is that they may easily be so interpreted
556 AKHITRATION AT <iENKVA. *
as Ut iucvvivii' to 2111 nucudnrable oxtont the obli^atiuns of lu^iitral powers. This, how-
ever, in a small matter coropared with what follows. «
Ilavin;; committed their country to judgment by princi|^Ies declared to be false, the
commissioners probably asked themselves to what subject those principles were to be'
applied. This brin^^s us to the question of the national or indirect claims. Those claims
were well known to the commissioners to exist. They had been made uot once or
twice but repeatedly. They had been advanced by ^Ir. Adams as early as 1832, by
Mr. Seward iu iP'ritJ, and more distinctly by 3lr. Revenly Johnson, by Mr. Motley and
by Mr. Fis||, in If^ii). They had been commented npon by l^ord Clarendon. The ab-
sconce of any provision for them had been made the ground of ivjection of the Jobo-
Hon-Clarendon convention.
They had peen presented to the com missiouevs themselves as a distinct ai^ecinl poioL
They could not bo disregarded ; nay, they alone were worth n*garding at all, ibr*they
were then the Hole and only point in dinpiite. The course of action niiou everything else
wjus already decide<l. England had already agreed to refer the direct claims to arbi-
tration, and had signed a convention for that purpose. America ha<l already agreed to
leave out of consideration the question of recognition of southern belligerency. There
remained absolutely nothing but these national claims on which any agreement was
necessary. The whole cpicstion was here ; the one point on which it wa.s absolutely
indispens^le to be precise and clear was this ; for failing precision and clearness here,
the whole matter would be left no further advanced than it already was. If national
claims were to be excluded, it was necessary that they should be excluded by the treaty ;
if uot excludiHl by tlie treaty, it was manifest tliat they would have to be uiel
under it.
TheKnglish commissiouers, howi'ver, knew that they were expected to return with
a treaty in their pockets, and cither thej' did not understand what they were about, or
they determined t4) return with a treaty leaving the one material point doubtful rather
thau with none at all. They did not, however, even succeed in leaving the point only
doubtful, for they agreed to a definition which, if there is any pense in words, doat
cover the indirect claims. It is declared iu the first article that " in order to remove
and adjust ALL complaints and claims on the part of thoMTnitedStates^^ • » • ♦ »
" the^high contracting parties agree that all the said claims, growing out of acts com-
mitted by the aforesaid vessels '' shall be referred. How it can be said that *' in all the
claims" those called indirect are not included, is a mystery. Nevertheless, the English
commissioners, it would appear, say it ana believe it still ; for, as late as the 23d ot
April last, we have Sir Edward Thornton telling the Americans at a public dinner that
" be believ^ no one supposed that the British joint high commissioners had any idea —
the slightest idea — that the indirect claims were included in the treaty.'' After this
confession it is superfluous to ask what title those gentlemen have to be considered
men of ordinary intelligence and judgment. It has, indeed, been whispered that they
had at the last moment doubts oa to this point, and that, in answer to their questions
upon it, the English government telegraphed "Sign at once." If so, Sir Edward Thorn-
ton's declaration does some injustice to liimHclf and his coUea^es.
IV.
Extract from the Pall Mall Gazette , February 2, 1872.
'*Now if wo look at all this fairly, and in due order, we shall see that it establishes
the following points :"
1. TUiit the American commissioners did ft^rmally set forth a demand for indirect
damages, and that they preferred it iu the very language of the case subsequently
drawu up for the court of arbitration.
2. That at the same time and in the same breath they offered to present tio estimate
of damage for indirect loss, in hope that an amicable settlement would be made for
certain direct losses: this amicable settlement being explained (or explainable) as
meaning the concession of an expression of regret, and that the joint commission
should proceed to agree upon a lump sum to be paid in satisfaction of all the claims
(meaning direct claims) with interest. Further that in this suggestion the withdrawal
of claims for indirect loss was stated to be " without prejudice " to their revival.
3. That the British commissiouers made no protest against the demand on accoaa^
of indirect loss, nor in any way attempted to separate that class of claims from the
other class, nor in any way inanifestecl hostility to the presentation of those claims;
but refusing to admit responsibility on account of all the claims without distinction,
they offered, for the sake of maiutaining friendly relations with the United Stateii^ to
adopt the principle of arbitration in disposing of the claims.
4. That the American Commissioners then ** expressed their regret at this decision :"
APPKNDIX. i)i)i
•
thereby showing or'ttociiiiug to show that iu their miutls a distioct proposal had been
cnusidered and rejected. Having thus expressed regret, they couseuted to submit the
qnestion of our ** liability" to arbitration, on condition that certain rules were drawn
up and agreed to for the guidance of the arbitrators. That after demur and reference
to tke British government this condition was accepted. That accordingly rules were
drawn up by the American commissioners, (apparently,) and that after some points
had been referred by the British commissioners to their government, these rules were
agreed to as bindiug on the court of arbitration.
Next, (though that docs not appear in that we have quoted above,) the joint high
commissioners *' proceeded to consider the form of submission/' and the formation of a
tribunal.
"Subsequently, the apology, or expression of regret, was asked for and conceded.
And then at various sittings those articles of the treaty were agreed to which refer t(>
the settlement by arbitration of *^ all the said claims growing out of acts committed by
the aforesaid (t. e., several) vessels, and generically known as the Alabama claims.''
It is of the utmost importance that in dealing with so critical a iftacter as this we
allow no prejudice nor any Bcns«) of wrong to operate in our minds unfairly; and that
we make no attempt to misread facts and staTements upon which the other side can
eVen plausibly rely. Therefore it is that wo print this recital. It should be added,
perhaps, that the statement above cjuoted was drawn up conjointly, and is signed by
both parties."
V.
Extracts from tke couthietital prtMH.
Neither iu the ccmrse of the debates on the joint high commission, which sat for two
months, nor in any of the clauses of the treaty intended to define the mode of the
proceedings and the functions of the tribunal of arbitration, as well as the principles,
to guide it in its decision, has England raised the least objection against any of the
clauses of reclamations presented by the United States. Slie has rejected all, in the
same way, without making any distinction, and has declared herself rcadj' to refer to
the decision of a tribunal. — MiUnorlal Diplomatique.
The fact is that the pretensions of America were perfectly' well known. Mr. Glad-
stone, Avith his habitual want of foresight, counted upon luc^ to relieve him from the
embarrassments in which the future might entangle him. — Gazette de France.
We can say, without separating ourselves from the truth, that there is no inconven-
ience in submitting the American claims for indirect damages to the tribunal of arbi-
tration at Geneva. No one doubts that they are exaggerated in the American case ;
but their introduction into pleadings is not contrary to the text of the convention at
Washington.— il/o«i/fwr.
It is not, we hasten to say, that the calculations of the American authorities are not
marked with a certain exaggeration ; but the essential point to discover is whether the
arrangements preparatory to the assembling of the tribunal of arbitration at Geneva
exclude the question of indirect damages. We think that they do not exclude them. —
Soir.
The text of the treaty is formal, aud the protocols leave still less doubt than the
treaty, as to the understanding of the claims and the principle by the United States.
The tribunal will decide what claims are presentable, and what are the questions to be
discussed. The American Government demands neither more nor less. It has stated
its claims before the court, and awaits the decision. England had better do the same.
Per irritation is that of a bad pleader who doubts his own right and the impartiality
of the court. — Journal de Parifs.
558 AKBITKATION AT GENEVA.
It M ovidcnt that the actual state of the question does not m much concern the
nature of the pretensions of the United States, us the refusal of England to submit to
the arbitrators Jill the complaints and all the claims, as the terms of the treaty of Wash-
ington seem to require. — Liberie. *
It is our opinion, given with the utmost impartiality, that there are wrongs ou
both sides. The Government of the United States attempts to introduce into interna-
tional law an unacceptcable doctrine, that of making the costs of war obligatory upon
the powere which arc not responsible for it, and which are even the first victims of it
in their interests. We understand very well that it is not necessary to take in earnest
the pecuniary claims presented by the Americans for t^e prolongation of the war, for
tlie increased rates of insurance, and other pretexts equally elastic and equally impos-
' sible to calculate, claims which exceed the amount we owe to a victorious foe. The
Americans understand perfectly the value of these claims, and have not the slightest
idea of pressing them. But, at the same time, they insist, and with a show of reason,
upon their right to interpret the treaty, and it must be acknowledged that the English
government has entered upon this affair with a degree of imprudence and levity which
may soon re-art upon it, and produce a change of ministry. — Journal des Debate.
Does this treaty authorize the Am(*rican Government to submit to the tribunal at
Geneva the claim for indemnity for indirect losses T The Americans say yes ; the Eng-
lish say no. Impartial persons say that the clause in the treaty does not exclude the
American interpretation, and, therefore, they are of the opinion that the difference
ought to bo brought before the tribunal. * * • The refusal of England to accept
arbitration on all the American demands, implies a doubt in the justice of her cause,
or in the impartiality of the arbitrators. — Con9titMtionnel.
The wisest course to adopt is to abide by the decision of the Geneva arbitration.
It is disinterested in the matter, and it can thus re-establish harmony and peace be-
tween the parties better than the parties themselves. — Tndependance Beige.
The stipulations of the treaty leave no one to doubt that the American commissioners
expressly reserve the i^ght to present such claims, although nothing was said about
the amount of the claims, the decision in that respect being left to the tribunal of
arbitration. — Allgcmeine Zeiiung.
If this tribunal is incompetLMit to decide without the advice of the newspapers
whether or not the American demands are preposterous and absurd, then its appoint-
ment was a mistake. It is, however, not to be supposed that such one-sided and ill-
timed arguments would exert any influence upou it. — licLsler Sachrichten.
The general opinion that the American demands were absurd has changed, and
people are commencing to see that they are justified in the treaty, and the storm is
now turning against the British commissioners. — lianler Xachrichten.
The treaty justifies in a formal manner the tribuuftl at Geneva, in which, as we
know, Switzerland is represented by Mr. Staemplli, in considering all the claims, of
whatever kind, growing out of the acts of the cruisers. Tbe question is only to know
to what point the tribunal will admit these claims, andif England will abide by its de-
cision.— Berner Ilelvetie.
The British cabinet, led by national pride anc^ governed by popular opinion, have
changed their ©ntire opinion Of the question, and put matters in such a light, that all
APPENDIX. 559
that remains for the tribunal to do is to retarn Lome. Tho Washington treaty expressly
states in regard to the tribunal that they settle all claims, and supports the American
position. Why England acts thus we do not see. Probably she thiuKs the tribunal is
about to give judgment against her. — Vienna Xeue Freie Prease.
England knew that demands were made not only for the acts of the vessels, but also
for indirect loss. One treaty, as shp knew, had been rejected because it had no pro-
vision as to this. If the joint commissioner had meant to exclude these claims tliey
might have used language clearly stating it, but on the contrary, the language is snob
as to include thorn. — Deutsch-Amrrikaniticher ^Economint.
The general European tone is one of warning to England not to break the treaty
What if America has let the affair Hlumber until Kussia declared itself ready. Cannot
the people on the Tbames see how strong the bonds between America and Russia must
be when the insult to the Russian Minister not only has not broken but has not even
loosened these tic^. If this is behind the Alabama question, the government at the
Foreign Office must bestir itSRlf. — Xeue Badische LantU-ZeUung,
The moment Eugland a<lmits the discussion before the tribunal of arbitration of
the claims growing out of the acts of the Alabama and other corsairs, she recognizes
the right of the United States to make, by reason of the acts of these corsairs, all pos-
Hible demands of damages, direct or indirect. She authorizes, in one word, the list of
injuries, and the formidable account upon which the arbitrators will pronounce^ but
which it is difficult to avoid b^' the preliminary question. — Le Soir.
This declaration of ,Mr. Gladstone, although contained in a letter of an entirely
private character, addressed to the correspondent of the New York World in London^
tleserves attention. It proves that the English government has not formed the design
of cntting fftiort all discussion, and that they consider the subject as still open for de-
bate.
It is important that these intentions should be understood and thoroughly appre-
ciated, and that, on both sides, men with moderate views may strive to effect a recon-
ciliation, so much desired. It appears that an effort in that direction has already been
made in England. Thus a part of the press of that country, the Pall Mall Gazette for
example, suggests the idea of referring to a new arbitration the disputed question of
the interpretation of the treaty. The Mc^morial Diplomatique recalls, In relation to
this proposition, a precedent which it will be possible to invoke. It is that of a treaty
which has been executed, of June 15, 1846, growing out of the dispute between England
and the United States, in regard to the frontiers of their respective possessions in the
northwestern part of the Now World. Now this treaty contained, as does the Wash-
ington treaty, a real mistake, and it is for that reason that, at this v«ry moment, it is
submitted to the arbitration of the Emperor of Germany. Could not as much be done
for the convention of May 8, 1871, to determine what interpretation it ought to receive
by nieans of a distinct arbitration f — Journal des Debats,
'Can any^ one to-day go ask tlie tribunal to suspend its work until the extent of its
jurisdiction shall be determined by a third party f Would it not find itself greatly
prejudiced by such a decision intervening at so late a period f Finally, is it not fair
to believe that the tribunal is itself the best judge of the extent of its powers f
These are considerations of a delicate nature, which the English government ought
carefully to weigh before making a decision which might perhaps i^lienate the arbitror
tors, and which would, after all, only defer the solution of the matter without lessening
its gravity. ' •
We persist in believing that the wisest policy, and that most in conformity with the
true interests of Eugland, and of Europe, would be to let the affair take its course, to
leave it entirely to the enlightened and impartial decision which the five eminent
statesmen, who have been intrusted with the high mission of solving the dispute, will
surely Tender.— Memorial Diplomatique, •
560 ARBITRATION AT (iENEVA.
•
SiDCO it became known that the North American cabiu'et hnd brought forward claims
for indirect damages for the consideration of the Geneva tribunal, a panic has arisen
in England, and now they wish to have nothing further to do with this tribunal. It
cannot be shown that the United iStates have broken the treaty. The wording of the
treaty does not prevent her in any manner from bringing forward claims for indirect
as well as direct damages. Therefore the English statesmen have l)c«n able to find no
escape except that of an appeal to their personal interpretation of the treaty. — Frank-
furter Zeitung.
The demands of America were known to England from the tirst^ and her representa-
tives did not object. They contented themselves by indicating that England conld not
be held liable for damage done the United States by cruisers of the Confederate States,
as proper diligence had been exercised to prevent their being armed and fitted out in
English potts, and these representatives simply referred all the claims of North Amer-
ica, having the action of these cruisers for a basis, to a tribunal of arbitration. Arti-
cle I of the treaty of Washington distinctly declares : " Now, in order to remove and
adjust all complaints and claims on the part of the United States, and to provide for
the speedy settlement of such claims which are not admitted by Her Britannic Ma-
jesty^s government, the high contracting parties agree that all the said claims growing
out of acts committed by the aforesaid vessels, and generically known as the ^Alabama
claims,' shall be referred to a tribunal of arbitration/' — Der Jiitud.
'* One sees," continues the writer, ** that the whole thing is aimed at the tribnnal
more than at the other party, for the latter is willing to leave to tho tribunal of arbi-
tration the question of its own jurisdiction, while England denies its right to decide
upon its own powers a question which every court of justice maintains as a prelim-
inary.* In England the right is assumed to withdraw from a treaty as soon as it ap-
]iears that there is a difference of opinion with regard to its construction. According
to this, the treaty must fall through, for to insureits fulHllment.or the fulfillment of an
eveYitnal sentence of tho arbitrators, there is but the compulsion of national honor, or
•of war." — XcHv Ziiriche Timen.
The Washington treaty plainly iudlca'es that all tho loss.'s growing out of the acts
committed by the aforesaid vessels are to be submitted to the tribunal of Geneva,
which will bQ called upon to prove whether England violated the rules prescribed by
the treaty for the government of neutrals, and, if so, what sum she must pay to the
United States in compensation for the injuries infiibted. He demonstrates that thf«
British case admits the submission of direct a^ well as indirect claims, and that it de-
nies all liability, claiming that England fulfilled all its duties as a neutral, and that
the idea of calling in question the submission of indirect claims to the Geneva tribanal,
only arose when "on the eve of the opening of Parliament the tories assumed a threat-
ening position, and tho nonconformists began to hold indignation meetings.*' — Vientm
ScHC Fremden Blatt.
Gladstone may assert a hundred times that the grammar as well as the spirit of
the treaty admits but one meaning, and that of tho English; he will not' entice tb<>
Americans from their position. His countrymen, and the papers most devoted to bira.
' must confess that tl^ wording of the treaty allows of the American as well as of the
English interpretation, that the construction is vague and loose. On tho other side i:^
the intention of the framers of the treaty. Both must be considered. And appeal tt»
tho preamble and protocol is not sufficient to clear up the mistakes. A refreshing re-
sult may be obtained from this war of words. Long and tedious interchanges of dia^
patches must be expected; perhaps, after all, the annulling of the treaty with all the
fair hopes attached to it. We shall hojro that no war will grow out of it', however, in
• consequence of Ihe still pending San Juan boundary and fishing questions. — IVnus
Seuv J^rcie PrcsHv. ^
Onr Loudon corrosiiomlent writes us: **The Atlantic cable works merrily to brine
lis the ntteranci's of the New York Herald, as ta the Alabama quarrel, which has ariM^u
with new power. The New York Herald sounds the war trumpet, some small folio \Tt»i^
APPENDIX. 561
•
second it ; the more intelligeut portion of the press, however, which preserves a mod-
erate attitude, maintains not less the view that the American Government cannot
withdraw her claims idready presented, because it belongs to the Geneva tribunal
alone, and not to England, to decide upon their submission. The view of the press is,
after all, as was well known, that of the American Government, and thereby the fatal
point of the situation is well indicated. Gladstone's expressed hope that his demon-
stration would convert the Americans to the English view, would hardly mislead any
one. One niliy discuss the right or wrong on either side as one pleases^ the one fact
cannot be denied, that in the wording of the Washington treaty the indirect claims of
the American Government, if not expressly a^eed upon, are not expressly excluded.
The Americans do not offend against the wording of the treaty, therefore, whereas they
submit them to the tribunal of arbitration. Whoever denies this assumes an untena-
ble position, and in beginning this monstrous piece of awkwardness Gladstone has pre-
pared not only for himself, but for England, many sad hours. He must hear toniay
from his old admirers in Parliament and in the press the bitter truth, repeated on aU
sides, that the means he has selected for his own defense are the most unfortunate, the
most untenable, and the most wanting in tact of all others. For through his assertion
of the absolute clearness of the treaty in every respect, he shuts the door against fur-
ther friendly explanations; he tacitly accuses the American Government of having in-
tentionally given a wrong meaning to something that was perfectly unequivocaL and
thereby makes, in the highest degree, difficult any friendly yielding on the part of that
Government. After he had ventured so far there remained for the Washington Gov-
ernment, which has also its own position to defend, only this answer : Will you^ if
every interpretation but yours is absolutely impossible, leave the decision in security
with the tribunal f Since yon are so firmly convinced, you have nothing to risk by so
doing.
''And how conld Gladstone reply f Either by a categorical No, which would expose
him to ridicule, and must lead to the breaking off of all further negotiations ; or by a
Yes, in which case he would confess the tmtn of that which until now England has
always declared to be nntnie.^' — Kolnischer Zeitung,
From whatever point of view the' subject be considered, there exists no justification
for England to withdraw from the treaty concluded at Washington. Be the demands*
of America ever so extrava^nt, there is yet nothing in the treaty itself, and nothing
in the general principles of international Jaw, to justify the withdrawal of the decision
on those demands from the tribunal of arbitration. It would, in fact, be deeply
to be regretted if the Geneva court of arbitration, the establishment of which is un-
doubtedly to be regarded as an essential progress in the life of international law,
should not reach the normal development of its activity. We rather on this occasion
l^ive expression to the most earnest wish that this procedure may lead to a further
development of international law. — Neue Preussitche Zeitiing.
It must be acknowledged, on an impartial review of the dispute, that these de-
mands, however extravagant they may be, are by no means new ; and when Gladstone
and Granville maintain that the protocols of the commission show that only those
losses directly derived from the capture of American ships were spoken of, everjr one
can convince himself from the protocols of the contrary. America had made these indi-
rect claims not only in dispatches and occasional declarations; the treaty of Januarjr
19, 1869, was, on Sumner's report, rejected, because it offered no assurance of indemni-
fication for the indirect iqjury suffered by America through the cruisers. With these
antecedents, the greatest caution was in any case prescribed to the Enslish negotia-
tions, but their instruction referred them, in regsu^ to the Alabama claims, lumost
solely to the diplomatic correspondence about them. » * « •
But not a word in the instruction sajjrs that only direct claims shall be admitted to
discnssioD, and just as little does the cited treaty of 1869 contain anything about them ;
that treaty speaks of " all claims, including the so-called Alabama claims.'' If we look
at the protocols of the joint hieh commission, we find on the first page that the
Americans enumerate in their fullest extent the claims now raised in the complaint,
and then declare that in the hoj^ of an amicable settlement, no estimate was made of
indirect losses, without pn^udioe, however, to the right to indemnification on their
account, in the event of no such settlement being made. As such a settlement they
then propose to agree upon a sum in gross, which England shall pay with interest to
America m satisfaction of all claims.
The English commissioners declined this proposal, because they conld not admit
that England had failed to discharge toward the United States the duties imposed on
36b
562 ARBITRATION AT GENEVA.
her by the rules of international law, and proposed the principle of arbitration. With
this refusal of the American proposal of an agreement on a sum in gross for all claims,
the liberty was given back to the Americans, which they had expressly reserved. The
Americans then on their side accepted the court of arbitration, on the condition that
certain rules be given to it for the consideration of the facts to be brought forward.
England yielded and the articles of the treaty were adopted. In the first article, it is
stated that ** the differences growing out of the acts committed by the several vessels
which have given rise to the claims generically known as the ^Alabama claims,' shall
be referred to a tribunal of arbitration." — Hamburgisher Cknnrespondent.
The safest as well as the most di^ified course is, therefore, to stapd upoi^ what
we conceive to be sound, legal principles, and to demur to any such claims for indi*
reot damage. — London TimeSf Januuty 2, 1872.
What that full extent may be we are not expressly told ; in fact, the computations of
the United States Qoverni^ent itself have not yet reached the mighty sum. It is easy
to see, however, that upon the principles put fbrward by the United States Govern-
ment, the total might easily be carried to an amount as startling as that of the French
indemnity. The American Government ask that a gross sum may be awarded it, and
that to the amount thus given may be added interest at the rate of 7 per cent, from
the 1st day of Jnlyt 1H63. Happily claims such as these are no longer'matter of con>
troversy between England and the United States. Confident in our own rectitude, and
in the substantial justice of our cause, we have consented to refer it to a tribunal so
constituted as to secure the confidence of the world. — The London Daily NeivSf Janwtrjf
3. 1872.
It may be that an agency is for the first time tVied in Geneva which will do mach.
to arrest that class of wars, by no means co-extensive with all wars, which arrise from
definite grievances, rather than from dynastic or national passions. It may also be.
that litigant nations, when they are unsucessful, will refuse to submit to an authority
which has no power to coerce them, and that an arbitration is no more than a useless
postponement of recourse to older and more familiar methods of decision. The ias^ie
may well be awaited with the keenest interest and even anxiety ; but there is no solid
ground for the anticipations of disaster which have been abroad for the last day or
two. — London Fall Mall Gazettey January 4.
It is scarcely necessary to say that our liability would only extend to the direct
consequences of our own acts. If, for example, it were held that it was through our
fault that the Alabama went to sea, we would be justly held responsible for the depre-
dations which she committed. But there, in accordance with every principle, not only
of international but of municipal law. our liability should end. That the agent of the
Government of the United States should contend, in the case he has present^, that ^ve
should also be responsible for the expen^ture occasioned in the pursuit of the cruisers,
for the loss by the transfer of the American commercial marine to the British flag, th«
increased rates of insurance, and even for the prolongation of the war, is not surpris-
ing, since he speaks as an advocate. But no judges could for an instant entertain such
claims. — London Morning Postj January 4, 1872.
If they did so couch their demands we should not think of re-echoing the ab-
surd alarms of some writers here at the exorbitant character of. the new Aiabama
claim. It must be borne in mind that President Grant seeks re-election, and that it
would be very unfortunate for him if his Sumnerite or other foes could say, with sny
appearance of truth, '* He has injured our case against the Britishers by not asking
enough.^' Therefore he has resolved to work the statesmanlike treaty in a popular way,
and to cover the act of submitting the aftair to arbitration by Yankee flourishes of tht>
most extravagant kind. K it amuses his countrymen it may serve him ; it certainly
does not hurt us. — London Telegraphy January 6.
APPENDIX. 563
" Wbftt shall we do f Oar first daty, both to the United States and to onrselveSi is
to demar to the consideration of the claim for iudicect damages put forward in the case
sabmitted by them, and to crave a decision upon our protest by the tribunal of arbi-
tration before consenting to carry the reference to subsequent stages. We gave great
confidence that our view would be approved, but, however painful it might be, we
ought not to hesitate to retire altogether from the case if the tribunal did not hold it-
self free to reject the consideration of indirect claims." — London Times, January 29.
VI.
Extract fvom the Journal dee Debate, Paris, June 6, 1872.
Les r^lamations pour '*dommages indirects'' que les iStats-Unis voulaient sou-
mettre an tribunal arbitral de Geneve seront probabloment 6cart^es. Les £tats-Uni8
semblent avoir enfin c^^ snr ce point important, et cependant, k consid^rer Taffaire au
point de vue des principes du droit et en laissant de c6t^ les grosses exag^rations de
feur m^moire, its soutenaient une th^e juste, ils ^taient dans le vrai sons le rapport
juridique. De qnoi s'sgi t-il en eifet T Quelle accusation ^l^ven t-ils contre PAngleterre T
lis I'accnsent, en premier lieu, de n'avoir pas empAch^ ses armateurs de fournir aux
conf^^r^ des navires de guerre ; en second lien, d'avoir par malice on n<$giigence
permis anx corsaires conf^^d^r^ de se servir de ses ports et de ses eanx corame d'une
base d'op^rations on de ravitaillement. Par le fait de ce manquement anx obligations de
la neutrality, %joufcent-il8, qu'est-11 arriv6 1 C'est d'abord que les confi6d6r^ out arm^
un plus grand nombre de corsaires qu'ils n'anraient pu le faire si PAngleterre avait
strictement observe ses obligations de puissance nentre ; c'est ensuite que les corsaires
confM^r^s, trouvant des refuges et des points de ravitaillement dans les ports et les
eanx britanniques, ont pn multiplier leurs d6pr6dation8 en raison de ce concours qui
lenr 6tait indftment accord^. Or nVst-il pas juste que PAngleterre soit rendue reepon-
sable des dommages causes aux int6r6ts am^ricains par ces deux sortes de manque-
ment h ses devoirs de neutre en admettant, bien entendu que les griefs formula contre
sa connivence on sa negligence soient fond^ T
Cette argnmentation est irr^prochable, et PAngleterre Ta reconnu, tout en se defen-
dant d'avoir failli k ses obligations dans les diff^rents cas qui font Tobjet des reclama-
tions americaines ; elle est tomb^e d^accord avec les £tats-Unis qu'elle pourrait lenr
devoir des domma^es-inter^ts, et elle s'est resignee k accepter sur ce point la decision
d^un tribunal d'arbitres dont la mission consistera l** h constater si rAngieterre a manque^
dans la guerre de la secession, h ses obligations de puissance neutre, et dans quelle
mesure ; 29 i reconnaltre et k dvaluer les dommages causes par le fait de ce manqne-
inent et k fixer le chiffre du dedonimagement. Seulement aprbs s'en dtre remise
enti^rement an tribunal pour resoudre la premiere question, I'Angleterre semble avoir
craint de se mettre k sa discretion ponv la seconde ; elle a impose des limites k sa com-
petence, en etablissant une distinction entre les ** dommages directs/' qn'elle reConnalt,
et les '* dommages indirects'^ qn'olle ne reconnalt pas. Cette distinction est-elle fondee
en droit on en raison f
Consultons, k cet egard, les faits, et voyons ce qni ressort de Texaraen et de Tanalyse
da cas en litige. Les corsaires oonfederes ont donne la chasse aux navires de com-
merce americains ; ils en ont capture an certain nombre, confisquant on detruisant
vaisseanx et cargaisons. Yoil^ une premiere categoric de dommages directs. II y en
a nne seconde: "Les etats du Nord ont 6i4 obliges de surveiller et de poursnivre les
corsaires du Sud; ils ont employe k cette destination une partie de leur flotte de
qni aurau pu
de Tapparition des corsaires dn Sud a snlQGi pour creer un ^'risque de guerre'' qui est
vena immediatement s'ajouter aux risques maritimes ordinaires. Ce risque extraor-
clioaire n'^pn ^tre convert que par une prime correspondante et dont le taux s'est
eleve avec Ini. On a done vu s'etablir une difference entre les primes d'assnrance des
navires et cargaisons americains et celle des nentres. Les armateurs et les negociants
qni ont paye cette difference on oe supplement de prime n'ont-ils pas subi un dom-
mage anssi reel que oeux dont les navires et les marchandises ont ete captures t La
perte a ete, sans doute, infinimeut moindre pour chacun ; en revanche, cette perte ne
s'eet-elle pas roultipliee par le nombre dee navires composant la marine marchande
americaine T Puis, qu'est-il arrive T C'est que I'existence de ce risque particnlier et
I'obligation de le couvrir par une prime suppiementaire ont fait abandonner les navires
americains pour les nenires, anglais,' hollaodais, danols, etc. Nouveau dommage
auqnel les armateurs americains n'ont pn se soustraire qu'en faisant passer d'une mani^re
rceue on fiotive, mais en tons cas non sans frais, leurs navires sous pavilion etranger
564 ARBITRATION AT GENEVA.
D'nn autro c6t6, u'cst-il pas vraisemblable que les atmenientj; en course ileadtats du Sud
ont contribu6, dans line certaine mesiire, h la prolongation de lalutte, soit en affaiblissant
les ressonrces des ^tats du Nord, soit en soutenant le moral des conf6d6r66] et n'en est-il
pas r<56ult^ une augmentation des frais de la gnerre f Voil^ bien toute nne sdrie de
domniages qui out 6t4 engendr^ par le fait de I'existence des corsaires dn Sud.
On peut leS analyser et les grouper, appeler ceux-ci direeis^ cenx-14 indirects, qaoiqne ces
deux caractor^s soient loin d'C^tre toujonrs claireraent marques ; mais on ne pent len
sdparer, on ne peut m6me les concevoir les nnssans les autresl lis forment nn ensemble
naturel, et c^est par un triage tout & fait arbitraire que FAngloterre a reconuu les
** domniages directs," et repouss^S les ** doniraages indirects."
Dira-t-ou que les domniages indirects, par lenr ^teudue m6me oomme anssi par lenr
caract^re vague et incertain, ^cbappent tk une Evaluation rigoureuse f Qu'il est im-
possible, par exemple, d'apprdcier dans quelle mesure les armements en course des con-
fi6dErEs out pu contribuer 1^ la prolongation de la gnerre f Cette objection est assart
ment des niieux fondles ; mais quoi ! appartieut-il bien aax parties en canse de tran-
cher la diiticultE qu*elle soul^vef N'est-ce point Paffaire dn tribnnal de d^idernon-
senlemeut ce qui lui semble lE^time on illEgitime dans les I'^lamations port^es
devant Ini, mais encore ce qni lui paratt ^bapper dk la possibility d^ine Evaluation f
N^est-ce pas empiEter sur sa oompEtenoe et ses attribntions que de limiter d'avaoce son
verdict f Sied-il bien surtont i^ la partie incnlpEe de Ini dire: ^'Voioi un domma^e
que Ton m^accnse d'avoir cansE et pour lequel j'invoqne votre arbitrage, mais je
n'entends point vous accorder le droit de le reconnaltre et de PapprEcier dans toute son
Etendne rEelle, car je n'ai qn'une foi limitEe dans la rectitude de votre jngenient: je
crains qne vous ne sacbiez pas discemer ce qu'il y a de faux ou d'exagdrE dans les
reclamations qui sont portEes devant vous, et je ne venx pas m'exposer sans r^rves
aux consEqnences d'un verdict qui me condamnerait, ou si vous Taimez mieux, je ne me
Boncie pas de rEparer tont le dommage qne j^ai causE."
Tel est pourtant I'attitude que PAngleterre a j^rise dans cette affaire. D*aocord avec
les £tat8-UniB, elle convoque un tribnnal d'arbitres, puis aussitdt void qn'apr^ avoir
pris connaissance du mEmoire de la partie adverse, la tdte lui tourne, elle preod penr,
elle Etablit des distinctions entre les grosses reclamations et les petttes, admettant la
competence des arbitres ponr celles-ci, la rejetant pour cellos-lJk, com me si elle se dEfiait
du tilbnnal, comme si elle oraignait qu'il ne se laissilt influenoer par les arguments
amEricains, au point de la condamner 4 quelque dedommagemeut formidable, ou sim-
plement comme s'il elle craignait qu41 ne roblige&t 4 payer tout ce qu'elle pourrait
devoir pour avoir manquE k ses obligations de puissance neutre. Cette defiance est
assurement pen flatteuse pour le tribunal, et on pent douter qu'elle le dispose favo-
rablement ii regard de PAngleterre, en admettant mdme qu'il consente a rendre nn
jngement dans les limites etroites et arbitraires qui lui sont assignees.
VII.
*
Extract from "La Question de V Alabama etle Droit dee GeiM," hy M, Pradier-Fad^,
raris, 1872.
Le texte du traite u'a point distingue entre les reclamations ; il les a toutes soumises
an tribunal arbitral, pour 6tre riglmt, Ni dans le conrs des debate de la Haute Com-
mission mixte, qui sidgea pendant deux mois, ni dans aucune dea clauses da traite,
destine ^ fixer la procedure et les attributions dn tribnnal arbitral, ainsi que le« prin-
cipes <}ui doivent le guider dans son iugement, rAngleterre n'a pas eieve la DDK>indre
objection sur Tune quelconqne dee catEgoriea de reclamations presentees par lee fitats-
Unis ; elle les a toutes repoussees an mEme titre, sans £ftiie de distinction, et oe n'est
que plus tard, en prince des pretentions des JStats-Unis, qn'eUe a fait ses lesorves aur
la nature de oertames reclamations determinees, enne contestant paa la compEtaDce Af»
arbitres ponr les autree.
Or, les negociateuFs anglais du traite de Washington devaient s'attendre ft ee que la
pretention relative aux dommages indirects pourrait se produire. Ss aavaient qa'on
premier traite avait dejii ete preparee et concln, il y a qnelqaee anneeo, entre lea deax
gouvemements, ponr le r^glement des reclamations, et que le 8enat de rUoioB »Tait
rejete oe traite, preoisement parce qu'on ne pouvait y faireentier lea redamatioaa poor
dommages indirects.
Us etaient done avertis. Comment expliqner lenr silenoe i oet Egard pendant lanE-
gooiation du second traite f Pourquoi cette mention si gEnenile, si eiastique, de ** ioates
lee plaintes,** de '< toutes lee Teclamations," lorsqn'ilB pouvaient inserer dans le traite
une clause speoiale excluant formellement les dommages indirects f Uni^uemeiit pre-
occnpes de laire valoir I'idee ^ne VAngleterre n'avait point vioie lee devoin de 1a nea-
tralite, lis ont neglige de specifier les reclamations sur lesquelles lee arbitres aaront i
APPENDIX. 565
se prononcer. lis les out touies comprises dans la competence du tribunal arbitral^ et
inaintcnaut quMl est possible de pressentir T^ventualit^S d'une condamuatiou k nne
r<?paration pi^cuniaire, le ji^onverncment de la Ceine et la nation anglaise vienuent dire :
'* Noas n'avons entendu dd^rer aux arbitres que la question des donimages directs !''
# # , « # # # #
A nos yeux, Tatfaire internationale qui prdoccup© si vivenient anjourd'hui les deux
luoudes n'est uullement conipliqu^e. pourvu qn'on I'isole de la politique et qu'ou la
Qjaintiouue dans son domame naturel : le droit des gens.
II n'y a pas de contestation sur les dommages causes aux iStats-Uuispar Ies*corsaires
8ns<Ht8, dont la fuite hors des ports anglais a 6t6 regrettee par sa Majesty britannique.
II n'y a guere plus de controverse sur la responsabilitd que cette fuite et cea d^prdda-
tions ont fait peser sur la Grande-Bretagne. Les Anglais^ du reste, sout dispusils ^
rc^gler le difr<6rend des dommages directs.
Que reste-t-il done ?
Uii tribunal d'arbitrage institud par nn tva,ii6 conclu dans un esprit auiical, et dont
la conclusion a 6t6 salu6e, dans le priucipe^ par les applaudissemouts do la nation
anglaise ;
*'Un exposd des £tats-Unis demaudeurs, qui est es8entiell«nient une piece de pro-
cedure ;
"Un d<^bat ouvert, dans lequel TAngleterre pourra faire valoir ses moyeus de
defense, et repousser des conclusions qui seraient mauifestement coutraires an droit, b>
la justice et-a la raison.
*• Les arbitres, enfiu, dont oi\ ne pourrait suspecter Timpartialitd sans coiumettre une
grave offense centre leur pcrsonne et les gouverueuieuts qui lea ont choisis.
"11 reste quelque chose de plus encore ; ^obligation pour les dtats qui veulent tracer
un si] Ion profond dans le champ de la civilisation, de respecter les traitcs.
" A propos du conllit anglo-am6ricain, on a parl^ de la force primant le droit ; mais
il y a une iniquit(S internationale non moins funeste ; c'est l'intid61it^ se jouant de la
foi jnrde. Pour les ^tats, comme pour les particuliers, tout se tient en fait de m<Sralit^.
L'oubli de la parple engag<?e conduit i^ la violence. Les peuples commencent par
61uder leurs eugagements et linisseut par opprimer les faibles."
vin.
*• Qaclques mots sur la phase nouvelle du differend anglo-americainy^ by G. IkOJinJactjue-
mynSf BrussvU, 1872.
Le trait<5 rend la commission comp^tente pour statuer sur les Alabama claims. Toute
la question est done de savoir si ces conclusions sont, en tout ou en partie, ^trang^res
aux Alabama clmms. Or nos lecteurs aurout d^j^ fait le rapprochement entre les con-
clusions et la d^laration faite par les commissaires am^ricains au d6bnt de la con-
f(^rence du 8 mars. Non-seulement I'esprit, mais le texte en est ideniique, Dans
I'uDO, comme dans Pautre, les cinq points sont formula et dans le m6me ordre!
La d^laration de retrait contUtionnel des demandes pour dommages indirect^ n'est faite
que pour le cas ou PAngleterre aurait accepts le paiement d'emblee de la somme de-
inandde pour dommages directs. M. Gladstone a, nous I'avons vu, pr^tendu le con-
traire, mais nous croyons que c'est h tort. £n effet:
A. 11 r^sulte de la lecture du proc^s-verbal que les termes amicable settlement^
ne s'appliquent qu'au r^giement inim6diatsans arbitrage. Partout ailleurs il ne s'agit
que de settlement, et le traitd lui-m6me ne parle que de speedy settlement^ (prompt rbgle-
ment.)
B. Le regret exprim^ par les commissaires am^ricains du rejet de leur premiere
proposition confirme cette mani^re de voir :
C. Lors que dans nne n^gociation une des parties abandonne ses pretentions, c'est
g^n^ralement contre la reconnaissance formelle de celle qn'elle n'abandonne pas. Sons
ce rapport il ^tait naturel que les cpmmissaires am^ricalns fusseut prdts k renoi^cer
aux dommages indireots comme prix d'uo engagement certain de payer les dommages
directs. Mais il ne Pest pins qu'ils fassent oette renonciation lorscj^ue tout est remis en
question par la nomination d'arbitres. II y aurait 1& une concession sans reciprocity,
un effet sans canse, qui, en Pabsence mdme de toute reserve, ne pent se pr<Ssumer.
Nous devons admettre, d'apr^ ce qui pr^cMe, que, & en juger par les documents
officiels et publics, le m^moire am^ricain ne soumet aux arbitres aucnne pretention
1 ** That in the hope of an amicable MtUeroent, no eatimate was made of the indirect fosses, without
Srejndioe. however, to the rijeht of ludemniflcaUou on their aooouut in the event of no such settlement
eing made."
566 ARBITRATION AT GENEVA.
qui ne soit de leur competence — c'e8t-4-dire, qui iie soit dans les temies du compromis.
Encore nne fois, quelqueB-uues de ces pretentions penveut depasser la niesure coni-
inand6e par la justice et le bon sens, elles penvent ^tre en elles-m^mes des actea de^M-
bligeants pour I'Angleterre, et coustituer une deception pour les ndgociateurs qne cette
puissance a envoyds. Mais les arbitres n'ont k consulter que les termes du traits,
eclair6s, en cas d'obscurite, par les actes qui y sont relatifs. Or le traits ne stipule
qfl'une cbose en matiere de competence^ cVst quUl s^agira d^ Alabama claims, et 11 ne
stipule pas, ce qui eftt 6t6 absurde, que ces claima seront raisounables. Car c'est pre-
cisemcntla question de savoir s^ils sont raisounables qui est defer^e aux arbitres.
IX.
Extract from *^ gli arhitrari internazionali, ed il trattafo di Washington j^^ by Anguste Pieran-
tonij Aa2}l€Sf 1872.
II trattato contonipla il case, cb<^ tutti i reclami possano essere amuiessi, poiche con
Tarticolo YII; stabilisce cbe il tribunale potra, se lo trover^ convenieuttf, decretare una
SOU] ma da pagarsi dall' Ingbilt«rra per tutti i rcclanii indirizzati.
II trattato considera il caso, in cui alcuni reclami potrebbero per la loro dubbiezza
impedire questo modo somniario di decisione, poicb^ Fart. X, s'tabilisce cho, se il tri-
bunale non decreter/i una somma, una volta tanto, si nomini un ufiicio di assessor! per
verilicare quali sono i reclami valevoli.
I contraenti perci6 stipularono reciprocity ed eguaglianza didiritti; air America
il diritto di presontare tutti i reclami, all' Ingbilterra la latitudiue di respingerli tuiti
e subordinatamente di restringere la misura dei dauni.
Inline le due poteuze convenuero, mediante I'articolo XI, di considerare le decision!
del tribunale "come nn regolamento completo finale, assoluto di tutti i reclami sopra
menzionati.
Ilprincipio di ermeneutica legale cbe tutte le clausole delle convenzioni s'int«rpre-
tano le une con le altre,.daikdo a ciascuua il senso cbe risulta dall' altra, ricoufenna la
jnenezza della volonti\ delle parti a det'erire ai giudici ogni specie di reclame, iudipeu-
dentemente dalla loro relativa giustizia, la quale h quistioue di merito, che spetta agli
arbitri di decidere.
Ma se i termini del trattato fossero oscuri, sarcbbe opportuno di risalire ai motivi
della conveiiziono.
E volentieri procederii, benancbe a tale novella iudagine, ])oich^ la ^ tanto valorosa
da dileguare ogni altra possibile obbiezione. II protocollo riferito uella prima parte del
niio scritto avverte che i commissari americani esposero in termini esattissimi tutti i
cap! dei loro reclami. Essi parlarono di numerose perdit>e dirette (^extensive direct
louses) e danni indiretti {indirect injury) risultanti dal passaggio sotto bandiera britan-
nica di una grande parte della marina mercantile aniericaua, delP aumento dei prezzi
d'tuisicurazioue, del prolongamento della guerra e dell' aggiunta di una somma consi-
derevole alle s]iese occorae per la guerra e per la soppressione della ribellione.
£ questi medesimi capi invariabilmente furono ripetuti nella raemoria presentata
al tribunale.
L'Ingbilterra per5 per la voce di alcuni nomini di Stato e per i clamori della sua
reputatissima stampa ci'ede di poter sostenere che una esplicita rinnnzia dei danni
derivati dalla protratta guerra sia stata fatta nella discussione del trattato. Che vi ha
di essatt>o in questa allegazionef
Reca il processo verbale cbe i commissarii proposero pure che I'altre commissioue
sMntendesse interno una somma da pagarsi dalla Gran Bretagna agli Stati Uniti in una
volta per tutti i reclami principcili ed interessi. Mediante questo regolamento avreb-
bero rinunziato ai loro reclami per danni indiretti; e dicbiararono non eeaervi pr^
giudizio tuttavia pel «lritto di reclamare pei danni indiretti, se alcnu regolamento di tal
genere non fosse conpbiuso.
E certo cbe se I'lngbilterra avesse allora accettato un regolamento immediato ed il
pagamento di una somma fissa, non soltanto sareblie mancato I'oggetto a' reclami, ma
ristesso oggettd del trattato. Invece i commissarii ingfesi contestarono in genere tatte
le pret^se degli Stati Uniti, si ricusarono al regolamento proposto ed offrirono soltaotu
di sottomettersi ad un arbitrato, pnrch^ si trovnsse un arbitro conveniente eche ai con-
venissero i pnnti, ai quali I'arbitrato si applicherebbe.
E gli agenti americani risposero, esponendo il loro dolore che fosse audato s monte
la proposta di una somma, I'arbitrato non essendo il regolamento amichevole (the
amicable settlement) in considerazione del quale avrebbero rinunziato alle loro do>
mande di danni interessi.
APPENDIX. 567
Kisnlta inoltre dalla lettura del procesHO verbale che le espressioni amicable settle,
ment furono adoperate per la ricliiesta di una liqnidazione immediata senza arbitrato,
e che ncgli altrl luoghi in cui si paTl6 di accommodameoto sotto altre forme si u65 la
semplice parola settlement o speedy settlementf (pronta liquidazione.) EspresBioni, che
hanno diverse valore, e che uon permettono di dire, come vorrebbe sostenere 1* Inghil-
terra, che Tarbitro presente sia lo stesso settletnent, di cui fu prima discorso dalF
America.
I commissarii inglesi non dovettero essere sorpresi dagli Americani, poich^ eglino
aapevauo che si potesse elevar pretesa dei danni indiretti.
L'alta commissione si riuiil k Washington, soltanto perch^ non era stato ratificata
dal Senate delP Unione la precedente convenzione. £ tra le ragioni del ri^etto della
medesima non ultima fh quella che non vi erano compresi i reclami indiretti. Se
dnnquo i negoziatori inglesi erano avvertiti) perch^ tacqnero f Perch^ a fronte delle
esplicite riserve e condizioni de^U.agenti degli Stati tJniti non usarono alcuna espres-
sione, che siguificar potesse yarieta di pensiero, di mente f
L'Inghil terra perci(> non pu6 trarre alcun argomento in favore dal fatto che i com-
missarii americani proposero di esser disposti a rinunziare ai danni indiretti, se amiche-
volmente e con somraa fissa, immediatamente allora si fosse dato fine alia controversia.
Se pure i commissarii abierlcani non ne avessero fatto speciale riserva, il loro di-
Titto di presentare la istanza al tribunale arbitrale di Ginevra per i danni indiretti non
sarebbe pregiudicato. Spettapoi al Tribunal di esaminare la giustizia ed il fondamen-
to, coRi di questi, come degli altri danni ; ma niun limite alia proposta di domande
jicaturisce dalla lettera e dalla ragione del trattato.
INDEX.
A.
PftgO.
Adams, Mr. :
bis impartiality ' 10
bis opinions. .1 141-2.'I0
receives tbe tbanks of tbe President and the Qneen 546
Adjournment :
British move, June 15, for eight months 6,16
Motion withdrawn 22
from December 15 to June 15 16
Alabama, the 30,37
award as to » 51
Count Sclopis's opinion asto 75
Viscount d'ltajuba's opinion as to I.. 99
Mr. Staempfli's opinion as to 116
Mr. Adamses opinion as to 171
Sir Alexander Cockbum's opinion as to ' 446
Arbitrators :
independence and ability of neutral 8
Archer, the :
decision as to 38,52
Argument :
British, filed at Geneva 30
United States, regarded as masterly ^ 6
United States, fil^ at Geneva 6, 17
supplemental, ordered and made 7, 30, 31, 32
supplemental, ordered, motion for, by Great Britain 21, 25, 27, 29, 30
Award of the tribunal :
transmitted by the agent 1,49
Tvhen made ^. 8
signature of. 48
fifteen and one-half millions of dollars 53
. B.
«
Beaman, C. C, jr., :
assisted in arranging evidence 2
Blockade : *
Sir A. Cockbum's opinions asto 237
Boston, the y 33,53,101
C.
Case of the United States. (See Great Britain, Commission, Due diligence,
Supplies of coal.)
how ]|>repared 2
theonesof ^ 2
part of, submitted to publicists, dtc 3
chapter on indirect claims not submitted 4
delivered at Geneva December 15 3,15
comments of the British press uiM>n 4
comments of the continental press npon 5
Chickamanga, the 30,37,52
Viscount d'ltajuba's opinion as to 101
Mr. Adams's opinion asto 214
Sir A. Cockbnm's opinion as to 527
Clarence, the 38,52
•
570 ARBITRATI9y AT GENEVA. /
Page.
Coal, supplies of:
position of the Uuit'ed States 11
views of Mr. Adams as to 11,148
views of Count Sclopis as to 11,74
views of Mr. Staempfli as to 11
views of Viscount d'ltujabaas to... 12,47
award respecting 50
views of Mr. Adams as to 11,148
views of Sir Alexander Cockburn asto 42*2
Cockbnm, Sir Aloxantler, (see table of contents, Fish, Mr.)
his dissenting opinion commented on 12,546
his claims to represent Great BHtain •- - 12, 2P6, 547
his charges against the counsel of the United States 12, 284
his charges against the case of the United States 13
admits the justice of the argument in the case of the United States 13
his opinions 230-544
thinks the treaty would have been better without the rules 230
his views as to British unfriendliness , 313
as to acknowledgment of belligerency 313
as to regulations of January, 1862 339
as to partiality in supplies of coal 344
asto supplies of arms 344
as to ships obtained from Great Britain 346
as to proceedings of other governments '^>
as to blockade-running 359
as to partiality of colonial authorities 365
asto course of British government -•... 366
this opinion not read or msmXe known before dissolution of tri-
bunal .M6
if known, would have been objected to 546
tjommission, effect of , 'X\
position of the United States * 10
British position 10
American rejoinder 10
views of Viscount d'ltajuba 10
decision of the tribunal • 10, 50
views of Count Sclopis regarding gS
views of Viscount d'lt^juba regarding 96
views of Mr. Adams regarding 146
views of Sir Alexander Cockburn regarding 40!>
Continental press :
opinions of, in appendix ^j1
-Contraband of war :
Sir A. Cockburn^s views asto 2:J7
Counsel of the United States : x
advise the agent at every stage of the pro<;eedings ?^
, Sir Alexander Cockburn'^s attacks upon them 12
their report to the Secretary of State. .--..- 550
Counter cases :
Exchanged at Geneva, April 15 5
Cnshing, General :
argument of 32
D.
Delay :
government not responsible for, (Cockburn) 267
Due diligence:
what was claimed hj United States to be 8
position of Great Britain astio s
views of Count Sclopis as to c 9,57
decision of tribunal as to ^
award as to 50
views of Mr. Staempfli asto.... U>5
views of Mr. Adams as to 141
views of Sir Alexander Cockburn asto '.... 260
E.
Errors of judgment :
government not responsible for, (Cockburn) 267
Evarts, Mr. :
oral argument of 31,32
INDEX. • 571
F.
Page.
Florida, the :
action of the tribnnal upon 7,28,29,38,51
argaments upon entry of, into Mobile «i5
Count Sclopis's opinion as to 90
Viscount d\[t^jnba'8 opinion as to 98
Mr. Staenipfli's opinion as to lOtf
Mr. Adams's opinion as to ; 150
Sir Alexander Coekburn's opinion asto 307
Fish, Mr.:
his comments upon Sir Alexander Coekburn's opinion 546
his remarks upon the Italian, Swiss, and Brazilian arbitrators 546
his resume of the positions maintained by Sir Alexander Cockbnrn 547
his opinion upon the effect of the controversy defining neutral rights and
obligations 548
he thinks it important to note the views of Sir A. Co ckburn 549
G.
Georgia, case of 34,37,52
Viscount dltajuba's opinion as to i JOI
Mr. Adams's opinion as to 187
Sir A. Coekburn's opinion as to 477
Governhient, neutral :
when responsible for acts of subordinates 234
should possess adequate powers to maintain neutrality, (Cookburu) 256
Great Britain, (see 'Municipal laws :)
unfriendly course of, how treateil in the case 2
government of had in consideration to ask withdrawal of case of United
States - *. ^ 5
unfriendliness of, Count Sclopis's views as to * 9, 62
Viscount d^Itajuba's views asto 9
Mr. Adams's views as to 10
submits new evidence Ii3
comparison of its laws with United States laws 255
Sir Alexapder Coekburn's opinion of the result of such comparison 307
requests to amend neutrality laws 278
Gross freights :
claims for rejected 53*
• I.
Indirect claims, (see Treaty of Washington,) (case of the United States:)
action of joint high commission on 1
such action in harmony with all previous 1
no exception taken to it by British commissioners 1
such action binding on agent of the United States t 1
their definition included some private claims 1
continental press unanimous in support of right to iiresent 5
action of the tribunal upon 6, 19, 20, 21
Insurgent bureaus : ,
maintenance of, on British soil, how treated in the case 3
Interest :
argument respecting claim for 43
Itajuba, Viscount d' :
declaration respecting supplies of coal 47
his opinions 96, 103
J.
Jeff. Davis, the 33,53
Joint high commission, (see Indirect Claims,) (Treaty of Washington) :
Joj', V. H., the 33.53,101
Judicial miscarriage:
government not responsible for, (Cockbum) 368
M.
Municipal laws (of England) :
cannot be set up in Justification 12
compared with those of the United States. 271
Music, the 33,53,101
I
572 . ARBITRATION AT GENEVA.
N. ■
Page.
Nashville, the 12,30,37,52
Viscount d'Itajiiba'8 opinion as to 101
Mr. Adams's opinion as to 212
Sir A. Cockburn's opinion as to 519
Neutrals, (see Government :)
rights and duties of, (Cockburn) 234
P.
Prospective profits : '
not allowed 43,53
Protocols of conferences :
transmitted by agent <i 1
text of. 15
Pursuit of cruisers :
expense of, disallowed 43,53
R.
Retribution, the .• 31,32,37,52
Viscount d'ltivjuba's opinion as to 101
Mr. Staempfli's opinion as to ^ i:id
Mr. Adams's opinion as to 217
Sir A. Cockburn's opinion as to 531
S.
«
Sallie, the 33,53,101
Sclopis, Count :
• his opinions 55-96
Secretaries of the agent and counsel :
their zeal and industry commended ' 6
Seizure of vessels :
duty as to, (Cockburn) 267
Shenandoah, tlie 35. 37, .V2
Great Britain liable for acts of, after leavi ng Melbourne 52
Count Sclopis's opinion as to 81
Viscount d^It^juba's opinion as to 101
Mr. Staempfii's opinion as to 125
Mr. Adams's opinion as to .*. 196
Sir A. Cockburn's opinion as to \6\
Staempfli, Mr. :
his opinions 103-141
Sum in gross.. , 44
determination of tribunal to award ' 46
amount of, awarded..... Ki
Sumter, the 12,30.37,52
Viscount d'ltajnba's opinion as to 101
Mr. Staempfli's opinion as to 134
Mr. Adams's opinion as to «. 208
Sir A. Cockburn's opinion as to 506
T.
Tables, with statements of claims :
new, presented by agents 35,37
Lord Tenterden's comments on American 36
Tacony, the :
decision as to 38,^
Tallahassee, the 31,37,52
Viscount d'ltajuba's opinion as to 101
Mr. Adams's opinion as to 215
Sir A. Cockburn's opinion asto 330
Tenterden, Lord, (see tables) :
desirous of saving the treaty 6
his friendly conduct in June 7
Treaty of Washington, (see Indirect claims.)
INDEX. 573
r
Page-
Tribunal of arbitration, (see Award, Indirect claims) : «
regarded as a judicial body 3
its condact shows that national differences may be settled by arbitration. 14
organization of. 15
judgment upon indirect claims 21
award and dissolution of. 49
Tuscaloosa, the :
decision as to 38,52
Mr. Adams's opinion as to .* 181
Sir A. Cockburn's opinion as to 473
W.
Waite, Mr. :
argument of 32
O
"1
Live Music
Archive
Librivox
Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland
Museum of Art
Internet
Arcade
Console Living Room
Open Library
American
Libraries
TV News
Understanding
9/11